Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Dipped Headlights

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to make the use of dipped headlights compulsory in built-up areas.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): No, Sir.

Mr. Knox: As there is evidence that dipped headlights are safer than sidelights in built-up areas, especially for pedestrians, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision?

Mr. Fowler: When road lighting is inadequate, motorists should use dipped headlights. As a matter of practice, the Government want to introduce the minimum of new restrictions and not the maximum. It is best to rely on motorists' common sense.

Mr. Carmichael: Have there been any results from the work of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on the photoelectric control of dipped headlights? There have been many objections that in most built-up areas the standard dipped headlight is far too bright.

Mr. Fowler: I understand that no system has yet been developed that meets the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend accept that even dipped headlights may dazzle, whether from oncoming or from following cars? Does he appreciate that that is especially dangerous in wet conditions? Is he aware that some of us think that a reduction in the use of headlights rather than more of it in well-lit areas would contribute to road safety?

Mr. Fowler: That is why I suggest that it is best to leave these decisions to motorists' common sense. A considerable study in the 1960s showed that there was no great difference in road safety in areas where dipped headlights were used and in those where they were not.

Armitage Report

Mr. Myles: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for the publication of a summary of the evidence given to the Armitage committee.

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in his consideration of the recommendations of the Armitage committee report.

Mr. Fowler: I am still considering the report of the Armitage inquiry and all the representations that have been put to me. The evidence submitted to the inquiry is available in my Department's library.

Mr. Myles: I accept that most organisations supported the concept of heavier lorries, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that, to accommodate heavier lorries, roads will be improved to an adequate standard—especially the A95?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure whether I can enter into a commitment for the A95. We are considering all the proposals that are set out in the report of the Armitage inquiry and not merely one or two of them. It is clear that roads will be one of the major issues.

Mr. Foulkes: Would not it be extremely dangerous to have any increase in lorry weight, especially when there is a severe cutback in expenditure on road maintenance and road building and when there is the danger of gas main explosions and severe collapses because of the use of heavy lorries? If there are to be economies in transporting goods, would not it be better to carry more goods on the railways?

Mr. Fowler: We want to see the railways gain for themselves the maximum amount of freight. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have maintained the level of road investment in motorways and trunk roads. The money that is being spent on the maintenance of motorways and trunk roads is greater than ever before.

Mr. Emery: When my right hon. Friend is considering the action that he will take on the Armitage committee 's report, will he realise that many small communities and towns, especially in the West Country, are massively concerned about heavy articulated transport passing through? Will he consider granting them extra powers to ban lorries that are over 32 tons, for example, from passing through villages and towns?

Mr. Fowler: That is one of the issues that we shall want to consider in our consideration of the report of the Armitage inquiry. I know from the fact that my hon. Friend has contacted me on this issue that there is concern in villages in the West Country and especially in his constituency. That is why we want to place as much priority as we can on building bypasses. I realise that that cannot be done immediately in all instances, but that is one of the main aims in our road building programme.

Mr. Alexander: Bearing in mind the extent of the objections to which my right hon. Friend has referred, particularly in rural communities, including my constituency of Newark, will he consider publishing the objections which have been received, as well as his conclusions on the report, with an indication at least of their quantity, if not necessarily of their quality?

Mr. Fowler: I shall seek to examine that point. We shall try to publish the maximum information on the subject. It is very much the Government's aim and intent


to obtain maximum information on the whole issue, including, as my hon. Friend wants, the views of those people who are opposed to the Armitage inquiry.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some drivers are taking long vehicles along narrow roads? They are a danger not only to pedestrians, but to domestic property. What is he prepared to do about that?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is correct in a number of areas, but there is no way that we can cure the inadequacies of the road system overnight. One of the proposals of the Armitage inquiry is a limitation on size of the lorries. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about length, that is taken care of. For all those reasons, I believe that it is wise for the Government to take their time in considering all the aspects of the Armitage inquiry.

Concessionary Travel

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will conduct an investigation into the different schemes of concessionary travel in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister afraid that such an investigation might reveal that some of the meanest local authorities in that respect are Tory-controlled? In view of the unfair anomalies and the wide discrepancies between different areas, will the Government consider funding a national scheme of concessionary or even free travel for all pensioners and also disabled people, especially as this is the International Year of Disabled People?

Mr. Fowler: There is a balance in the matter. As a nation we are already spending about £120 million a year on concessionary fares. A half-fare scheme would raise the annual cost to £200 million. A free fare scheme would raise the cost to £300 million. Frankly, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that in the present circumstances that is not something which we can afford.

Mr. Trippier: While I appreciate the natural reluctance of the Government to circumvent the powers given to local authorities to determine the cost of concessionary bus passes for the elderly, will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to make a direct appeal to the neighbouring local authorities where significant anomalies exist, in the hope that a more uniform system could be applied, which would be more equitable to those who cannot avoid cross-boundary travel?

Mr. Fowler: We should be prepared to do anything we can to make possible a closer co-ordination of those schemes on a local basis. The responsibility lies with the local authorities. The vast majority of district authorities provide such schemes. I am prepared to consider my hon. Friend's proposal.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not ludicrous for a progressive council such as the GLC——

Mr. Garel-Jones: The previous one.

Mr. Lewis: The previous one and the present one, to give concessionary fares, and now impose higher rates to allow free or cheaper travel for all when the sick, the disabled and old age pensioners, who already have

concessionary fares, are to be taxed to allow Members of Parliament and people earnings £10,000 or £20,000 a year to have cheap fares? That cannot be right.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have been strongly putting that case for the last few months. I agree that in London it would be wrong to have such indiscriminate subsidies. The fact is that the people who will pick up the bill are the ratepayers of London. Many will regret that when the bill comes through later this year.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is not my right hon. Friend entirely right that the path to pursue is to make services available, particularly on a more informal basis, which helps in rural areas where there is no service at all, even if one has tokens? That must be the right path to tread.

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Many local authorities will take the view that it is better to provide support for a service than to talk in terms of concessionary fares. That is why the policy which we are pursuing, and which the previous Government pursued, is right.

British Railways (Sale of Subsidiaries)

Mr. Prescott: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what current statutory provisions permit the sale of British Railways subsidiaries in whole or in part; whether his instruction or consent is required; and what conditions he has required for any sale now under consideration.

Mr. Fowler: The British Railways Board has certain existing powers under section 14 of the Transport Act 1962 to dispose of assets without my consent. I can now tell the House that under these powers, the board plans to transfer to a new private sector company as going concerns the Gleneagles hotel and the Caledonian and North British hotels in Edinburgh. Two-thirds of the equity would be placed with private investors. The board wishes to acquire a one-third shareholding in the new company so that it will retain a continuing interest. A shareholding of this kind, however, requires my consent and on the material available to me, I am ready to consent to such an acquisition. I welcome this step for bringing private capital into the development of the board's subsidiaries. I hope the plan will be to the benefit of its customers, its staff and the tourist industry in Scotland.

Mr. Prescott: That reply was substantially a separate statement. Will the Minister make it clear that the estimated five-year investment of £7½ million could be raised by mortgages or leases without the ideological requirement of private shareholding? Will he assure the House that this rushed deal was not the decision of the company or that the company was not pressurised by the Government? Is it true that the company's advisers have stated that a sale now will be at a discount price of £4 million and a loss of income of £1½ million a year to the company? That may be good for the Tory city gents or for the Tory Party conference, but it is bad for the taxpayer and the company concerned. It is worthy of investigation by the Public Accounts Committee of the House.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should calm down a little. First and foremost I stress that the proposals have been produced by the board on the advice of British Rail


Investments Ltd. and British Transport Hotels. The proposals are at the board's initiative because it sees clear advantages of this course for the hotel business. Therefore, there is no question of my having pushed the board. My role is confined to consent for the shares purchase which is taking place. Anyone who knows anything about British Transport Hotels will confirm this. The reason why this course has been taken is that, not just over the last two years, but over the last 25 years, hotels in the British Transport Hotels group have been starved of investment. This is a practical and constructive way of dealing with that situation. Given that the board supported the plan, I should have expected that the Opposition would do so also.

Mr. Ancram: Is my right hon. Friend aware how warmly welcomed his decision will be in Scotland? However, has the Scottish Tourist Board been consulted? What has been the procedure of sale to ensure that the sale takes place to the best advantage of Scottish tourism?

Mr. Fowler: I confirm that the plan will be an asset to Scottish tourism. One of the main objects of the exercise will be to bring badly-needed investment into the North British hotel. British Rail wants to see Scottish institutions taking part in that investment. I believe that the plan is to the benefit not only of Scottish tourism, but of those who work for the hotels.

Mr. Cowans: Is the Minister aware that by giving his consent to the sale at this time he has deprived British Rail of at least £5 million, which is the asset value compared with the price? Will he confirm, as he said during the passage of the Bill, that all the money from the unfortunate sale will be reinvested in British Transport Hotels and will not be hived off when he makes grants to British Railways, as that would gainsay his argument that the money would go to British Rail? Can he give that categorical assurance and will he stand by it?

Mr. Fowler: The proceeds of the sale will go to the owners—the British Railways Board. Part of the purpose of the sale is to enable the board to use the money to invest further in the hotel business.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It has no initiative in the matter.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I repeat that the initiative comes from the British Railways Board. As I understand the figures provided for me by the board, the proceeds will be over £10 million, part of which will be used to pay for shares in the new company. The board will not only have a capital sum but a continuing one-third interest in the new company. It is a good deal for the board and for those working for British Railways.

Passenger Line (West Cumbria)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any proposals from British Railways regarding the closure of the passenger branch line in West Cumbria.

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that if West Cumbria is successfully to attract industrial development money, it will have to reassure industrialists that the West coast branch line will not be closed? Will he consider introducing protected routes in areas of industrial decline?

Mr. Fowler: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by protected routes, but no proposal concerning the line has been made to me. The hon. Gentleman knows my policy concerning such tires. I should have to grant permission for the line to be closed, and my decision would be made in line with my general policy of not wishing to see substantial closures in the system.

Railways (Electrification)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the findings of the railway electrification review.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State. for Transport when he expects a decision to be made on further railway electrification.

Mr. Fowler: I hope to be able to make a statement on railway electrification in the next few weeks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the Minister answering question No. 14 with question No. 6?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir.

Dr. Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister also answering question No. 21?

Mr. Speaker: No, I regret to say that he is not.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the nation waits anxiously for a statement on electrification, as do the workers and management of BICC where recently a further few hundred men were put on the scrap heap? As electrification of the main line makes good sense and will give us a far better transport system, will he make a statement urgently?

Mr. Fowler: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's request. Electrification will affect not only British Rail but the private construction industry. As I said, although I cannot be categorical I hope to make a statement by the end of the month.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that enthusiasts for electrification earnestly await the decision, although we recognise the Government's role as guardian of the taxpayer's interests? Does he agree that the task of those who support electrification, and of Sir Peter Parker, who needs and is worth every penny that he is paid, is made immeasurably harder by excessive wage claims, which tremendously damage the prospects of the Government coming to a favourable decision?

Mr. Fowler: Our considerations include the commercial prospects of the inter-city and freight business. Productivity and the cost of labour must come into our examination.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State ensure that a statement is made by the end of the month? Is he aware that, like other hon. Members, I already have layoffs in one factory in my constituency, where the rate of unemployment is over 12 per cent., and electrification would help enormously?

Mr. Fowler: I am conscious of the demands, bat we are talking of substantial sums. Even the small option would cost £282 million over 15 years and the large option would cost £750 million over 20 to 30 years, so it is


reasonable that the Government should have time to consider their position, although I hope to make a statement in the next few weeks.

Mr. William Hamilton: Has the Minister seen the report in The Times this morning that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a Neddy meeting this very day, is to take a hard and rigid line against increases in public investment? Will he please not allow his statement to be influenced by the Chancellor's silly, stupid rigidity?

Mr. Fowler: I have not seen that report, although I have read a number of reports in The Times and one in particular. I would not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the Chancellor. The Treasury and the Chancellor are involved in the examination. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a few more weeks.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the cash limit announced this week for British Telecom, apart from entirely disproving the representation of the Chancellor given by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), is a valuable precedent that my right hon. Friend can use in his arguments with his colleagues to support rail electrification?

Mr. Fowler: I am always grateful for additional ammunition.

Coach Services (Delicensing)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of delicensing of coach services on inter-city fares; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: The Transport Act 1980 came into effect in October last year. All road service licensing restrictions came off inter-city coaches, and the result has been an unprecedented growth in coach services. In many cases, fares have been halved. For example, a single fare now costs £2·50 between London and Birmingham, when it used to be £5·40, and £4·50 between London and Liverpool, when it used to be £9·20. Such reductions have been the direct result of free competition.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank my hon. Friend for those interesting figures, but how many people are now able to travel who previously could not do so because they could not afford train fares?

Mr. Fowler: I can give a general answer. On some major inter-city routes the number of passengers has increased by over 150 per cent. National Express tells me that in 1980 it carried 8¼ million people and expects to carry 12 million in 1981, so that is the scale involved. In addition, there are the British Coachways private consortium and other operators. In other words, the improvement is the most dramatic that we have seen in coach travel since the war.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware of the absurd consequence on the other side of the coin—the reduction in passenger receipts on HST British Rail, which on the South Wales to London route is 10 per cent. and which is largely due to the Government's delicensing? Did he expect such consequences, and, if so, will he compensate British Rail?

Mr. Fowler: That is a classic operator argument. The policy is best described by saying:

Provided the terms of competition are fair, if people choose to travel by coach rather than rail or air because lower fares are more important to them than speed, they should not be prevented from doing so.
That is a direct quote from the previous Government's transport White Paper. We are simply putting the principle into effect.

Mr. Robert Atkins: What can my right hon. Friend do about local authorities that are not prepared to allow facilities in their bus stations for private coach operators?

Mr. Fowler: I know that problems have been caused and obviously we should like to help as much as possible. If my hon. Friend gives me details of any individual cases, I shall take them up.

Mr. Skinner: Is not one of the main reasons for the increase in the number of passengers using the so-called inter-city services operated by National Express and the other companies and for the greater than expected growth—about 4 million extra passengers next year—the massive number of demonstrations that have been taking place against the Government? On Sunday, I came down to London and passed more than 100 coaches which were full of demonstrators. That will continue for the next three years unless the Government are removed.

Mr. Fowler: That is one of the hon. Gentleman's sillier interventions.

National Bus Company (Mileage Cut)

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will take steps to avert a cut of 60 million miles in the bus service mileage operated by the National Bus Company in 1981 involving 4,000 redundancies.

Mr. Fowler: Over recent years the National Bus Company has faced a decline in demand on stage carriage services. It has, therefore, carried out a series of market analysis projects which are enabling it to reshape its services in line with current demand. It would be wrong for it to operate services where there is insufficient demand and local authorities do not consider that revenue support to it is the most cost-effective way of providing essential transport.

Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the combined effect of his transport supplementary grant regime and last year's legislation is that the biggest bus company will have to slash the number of passenger service miles operated? It will be the most massive cut that has ever taken place in a single year and will throw thousands of bus workers out of jobs. In addition, it will deprive hundreds of thousands of people of their bus services. The right hon. Gentleman has already acknowledged that inter-city coach services are expanding. Therefore, those cuts will affect rural areas and off-peak urban services. His policy will damage those areas that have no alternative to the bus.

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I accepted the revenue support bids from the shire counties with only one exception. The National Bus Company operates in the shire counties. There can be no correlation between that and the transport supplementary grant.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the financial burden on the National Bus


Company might be eased if we were to reconsider the interest that it pays on its historic debt, which runs at about £17 million per annum?

Mr. Fowler: The National Bus Company feels strongly about that. Neither the Labour Government nor this Government have felt able to agree to such a request. We are unertaking an independent appraisal of the financial effect of the allocation of debt between particular subsidiaries. That appraisal resulted from a meeting with the National Bus Company and the unions involved. I hope to make a statement on that in due course.

Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to allow private bus operators to offer cheap fares on the most popular routes prevents the public operator from subsidising less popular services from the receipts that he would have obtained? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's policy bound to result in the cutting of more and more services in rural areas and on less popular routes?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the policy. On stage carriage services the traffic commissioner system—which has a 30-mile circumference—continues. Therefore, the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's case is based is false.

Nationalised Industries (Disposal)

Mr. John Townend: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the Government's policy of disposing of parts of nationalised industries which are within the responsibility of his Department.

Mr. Fowler: The Transport Act 1980 gave powers to return the National Freight Company Ltd. entirely to the private sector and I intend to do so as soon as practicable. The current Transport Bill will enable me to dispose of a 49 per cent. stake in the British Transport Docks Board undertaking. The Bill also opens the way for the introduction of private capital into British Rail's subsidiary businesses. I have also announced today my agreement in principle to proposals from the British Railways Board which would place three of its Scottish hotels in a private sector company in which the board would retain a one-third shareholding.

Mr. Townend: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does not he agree that the higher the proceeds from the sale of assets to the private sector, the more resources there will be available for investment? Would it not be better to maximise the proceeds by selling British Transport Hotels and Sealink lock, stock and barrel? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will be disturbed by his statement today to the effect that British Rail intends to invest the money from the sale of the shares in its hotel company in other British Rail hotels? Might it not be better to use that money for investment in the renewal of rural lines, such as the Hull, Bridlington and Scarborough line?

Mr. Fowler: That would not be a sensible course for British Rail to take. We have told British Rail that it has the discretion to put forward such proposals. British Rail has come to the conclusion—I stress that it is its conclusion—that it is to the benefit of the British Railways Board to sell the interest in the hotels. However, it wishes to maintain a continuing interest in the hotel business. I

should have thought it reasonable to allow it to do so. Control in the business will pass and that is the most important factor.

Mr. Cook: Is not the nub of the matter that it is impossible to conceive of a more depressed market on which to launch the sale of a major asset than the state to which the Government have reduced the economy? Given the Secretary of State's earlier statement, will he give an assurance that neither he nor the board has received any advice to the effect that it would be against the public's financial interest to sell now? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unless he increases the external financing limit on British Rail by the amount gained from the sale, not a single new penny will be released for investment in British Transport Hotels or in any other part of British Rail?

Mr. Fowler: We want to achieve something that is to the benefit of the British Railways Board. The proceeds will go to the board. It will then have discretion as to what they are used for. Some of the proceeds will clearly be used for the hotel business. I confirm that the British Railways Board took the advice of hotel valuers and acted upon it.

Mr. Stephen Ross: How far have British Rail's proposals gone as regards the disposal of Sealink? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his earlier decision to sell the operation as a whole and give permission to split up at least some parts of it, particularly the routes to the Isle of Wight?

Mr. Fowler: The decision about Sealink is before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I can say nothing useful until a decision has been reached.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his decision in respect of Scottish hotels will be welcomed by all in Scotland—[Interruption.]—with the exception of the lunatic Left? Does not he further agree that the development of the hotels by private capital might be of considerable benefit, not only to tourism, but in giving a proper impression to visiting business men of the facilities available in Scotland?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. The decision is important for Scottish tourism. Given the increased development in the group, I look forward to the fact that the assets and attractions of Scottish tourism will be increased.

Mr. Booth: If the proceeds from the sales go to the British Railways Board, how can they be used to reduce its call on the National Loans Fund, as was claimed in the financial memorandum to the Transport Bill?

Mr. Fowler: The funds will go to the British Railways Board and it will use its discretion as to how to make use of them. The proceeds will amount to over £10 million. British Rail will wish to maintain a continuing one-third interest in the hotel group that is then set up.

Seat Belts

Mr. Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made of methods of enforcement of legislation on the wearing of seat belts.

Mr. Fowler: We have made no specific study, but I have some information on experience in other countries


where compulsion has been introduced. The main conclusion which I draw from it is that there would have to be a continued enforcement effort by the police if such a law was passed in this country.

Mr. Heddle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the compulsory wearing of seat belts is an issue which divides parties and indeed families throughout the country? Will he be kind enough to share his own views with the House today and confirm that if an amendment to the Transport Bill were carried in another place to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory there would be a free vote on the issue in this House?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, of course. There will certainly be a free vote on this issue. There will be a free vote of the House and a free vote of Ministers, and the Government will respect the decision of Parliament.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has the Minister noted those studies which have shown that in countries which have introduced compulsion the actual results by way of reduction of casualties have borne no relation to the theoretical projection which was made before the legislation was introduced?

Mr. Fowler: That is the Adams thesis. It is something which I think that the House will wish to bear in mind when it considers any amendment that may be made in another place.

British Railways (Suburban Passenger Lines)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much investment has taken place in British Railways suburban passenger rolling stock, track and equipment in 1979, 1980 and 1981 to the most recent practicable date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: I understand from the British Railways Board that actual expenditure on new rolling stock for suburban rail services amounted to £27 million in 1979, £50 million in 1980 and will probably reach £43 million in 1981. Most track and equipment is used jointly by various services, and investment in these items for suburban services is not readily identifiable.

Mr. Cryer: Has the Minister seen the current issue of Railnews in which the chairman of British Rail says that there will be no new rail investment in 1981 and that this is a most critical time for British Railways? With a projected decline in investment in 1981, is it not time that the Government took action to provide British Rail with large funds in order to inject new investment particularly for suburban rail services—the replacement of the diesel multiple unit fleet, for example—to attract new passengers to British Rail? With 2½ million people unemployed, is not it the Government's duty to attempt to reduce the dole queue by action of this kind?

Mr. Fowler: The investment ceiling of £325 million is the same as it was under the Labour Government and has been maintained. As a nation, we are providing direct support, both nationally and locally, of more than £700 million. There is, therefore, absolutely no question about the Government's commitment to the railway industry. As I have already said, we are making important decisions concerning future investment in some areas of British Rail. I hope to be able to make a statement on that in due course.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that much of the rolling stock, at least in the Southern Region, is hopelessly out of date? Will he have talks with the British Railways Board to see whether something can be done about this urgently?

Mr. Fowler: I am always willing to talk to the British Railways Board on specific matters. About 23 per cent. of British Rail investment goes to the London commuter services each year, but I shall of course discuss any specific points with the chairman of the board.

Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Sir Peter Parker has informed him that, in his view, it is crucial that the rail investment limit should rise to £567 million per year? If the Secretary of State shortly reappoints Sir Peter Parker to his present position, may we take it from that that he has reached broad agreement with him on this point?

Mr. Fowler: The implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that there is some connection between the reappointment of Sir Peter Parker and investment levels. That is not the case and it has certainly not been raised by Sir Peter Parker at any stage.

Traffic Offences (Fixed Penalty)

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress towards a fixed penalty system for minor traffic offences.

Mr. Fowler: The report of the working party on traffic law set up by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself was published on 20 May. The Government welcome the recommendation that the fixed penalty system should be extended to the less serious moving traffic offences. We have not, however, accepted the proposal that the carrying of driving licences should be compulsory. We have proposed instead that the fixed penalty procedure should be available to a driver only if he produces his licence.

Mr. Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many millions of motorists will welcome this second innovation in his short term of office and will welcome him as the motorist's friend, bringing simple justice for simple offences? Has he made any estimate of the amount of time and the burden on the courts that will be saved as a result of this simple and better system?

Mr. Fowler: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The estimate made by the working party is that the extension of the fixed penalty system to minor moving traffic offences would take about 600,000 cases out of the courts. I think that that is one of the great merits of what is proposed. The expected saving is between £3 million and £10 million per year.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the Government's obduracy over Civil Service pay means that many people are unable to drive with a valid licence and that many thousands of people—those who are disabled, those who become disabled, who need to have a renewable one-year licence, and those wishing to begin driving again after being banned for a year or so—cannot obtain a licence? Is he aware that his system would be inoperable at the present time because of the Government's obduracy on Civil Service pay?

Mr. Fowler: That takes us considerably further than the present question. I am, of course, well aware of the problems being caused by the industrial action taking place at the Swansea vehicle licensing centre. I think that that is a great pity, not only from the point of view of the public, which is pre-eminent, but also for the reputation of Swansea, which had been improving over the past two years.

Transport Policy (Co-ordination)

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the leader of the Greater London Council to discuss the co-ordination of a transport policy in London.

Mr. Fowler: I have written to the leader of the GLC to suggest a meeting.

Mr. Townsend: Does the Minister recall that last time Labour controlled County Hall its transport policies led to a fares increase of 130 per cent. and a rate increase of 235 per cent.? Will my right hon. Friend discuss damage control with the new leader of the GLC and will the Government recommend a PTA for Greater London as suggested by a Committee of this House?

Mr. Fowler: The second part of my hon. Friend's question is clearly a matter to which we would have to give much closer thought than would come from a snap answer at the Dispatch Box today. The issue which causes most concern at the moment is that, if the GLC were to implement the kind of proposals that it put forward, it would cost the ratepayers about £90 million merely for the rest of this year. The cost to London ratepayers, both domestic and industrial, would be £200 million in a full year. I believe that the GLC would do well to think twice before introducing a policy costing that much money.

Mr. Prescott: When the Minister meets the leader of the GLC, will he bear in mind that in the last election the alternative of a Labour low fare transport policy was posed against years of Tory high fare transport policy and the electorate voted for the Labour low fare policy, even when it was paid for by themselves as ratepayers? Will he bear in mind that the new leader of the GLC fought and won the election on that very manifesto?

Mr. Fowler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls, as he supported them, that the last Labour Government fought tooth and nail against exactly the policies that he now advocates.

Recessionary Effects

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the recession on the transport of goods by (a) roads and (b) rail.

Mr. Fowler: Freight transport is a service industry and both rail and road carryings have inevitably fallen because of lower economic activity. Rail freight traffic was about 11 per cent. lower in 1980 than in 1979, although some of this fall was due to the effects of the steel strike. Provisional figures for road, which was less affected by the strike, show a decline of 8 per cent. between 1979 and 1980.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should realise what their

policies are doing, not only to industry and commerce, but to the transport system in this country? When he next goes to a Cabinet meeting, will he stand up and tell the Government that it is time that more money was put into the public purse so that the purchasing power of the nation will increase, more goods will be produced and a better transport system will result?

Mr. Fowler: My colleagues would be a little surprised if I stood up to make a speech of that kind, but I am conscious of the demands of transport, and particularly of transport investment, which is the crucial issue. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.

Mr. Foster: Is it not time that the Secretary of State redoubled his efforts to divert traffic from road to rail? Does he realise that if he were to pursue these policies more vigorously and to increase investment, particularly in British Rail Engineering, he would be safeguarding up to 5,000 jobs in the Northern region?

Mr. Fowler: The only system one can have in the freight area is one of fair competition between road and rail. That is the policy of the Government. It was the policy of the previous Labour Government. Any policy that sought to direct freight would be bound to fail.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Ministry of Defence

Mr. Viggers: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will institute a study of conditions of service of those civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): No, as I do not believe one is required.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of industrial and professional civil servants respect their special position and the special duty they have to Government, and believe that the Government's attitude to their pay is fair? Does my hon. Friend further agree that under the previous Labour Government the pay restrictions held back the pay of those working for the Ministry of Defence to a shameful degree, and that they have benefited to a lesser extent than most civil servants from pay increases since that time? Does he accept that other civil servants should bear that in mind in the making of a global settlement of Civil Service pay?

Mr. Hayhoe: The House would do well to note that the vast majority of industrial civil servants—and, indeed the vast majority of all civil servants—are working normally and keeping the work of their Departments and the Government going. In the Ministry of Defence, only a very small minority of people are taking disruptive action, and I hope that they will soon totally desist.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister feel that he needs to initiate a study of the whole Civil Service? How much longer is the dispute to be allowed to drag on, particularly when the unions are crying out for a reasonable settlement, and, due to the Government's obstinacy, moderates are being turned into——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating other questions that are on the Order Paper and will, I hope, shortly be answered.

Mr. Neubert: If it is unacceptable for our Armed Forces to go on strike, is it not equally unacceptable for civil servants, employed by the Ministry of Defence and capable of reducing our defences, also to go on strike? Should not a no-strike agreement be negotiated with them before very much longer?

Mr. Hayhoe: There is a clear distinction between civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence and members of the Armed Forces, and many different conditions apply to their work. I have already made clear to the House that I can see the desirability in principle of no-strike agreements. The Government are ready to discuss with the unions the possibility of achieving no-strike agreements.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister recollect that, after the sacking of the Ministry of Defence cleaners at Bath, the contract cleaners who were taken on were subsequently accused of defrauding both the national insurance authorities and the Inland Revenue? Will he tell the House why the outcome of the Government's investigation into that allegation has never been revealed—in particular, not to this House—and why the company has never been prosecuted? Does it not seem an odd sense of justice that people have rightly been prosecuted for drawing social security benefits while working for contract cleaners in Birmingham, whereas the company which has been working for the Ministry of Defence in Bath has not been prosecuted for defrauding two Government Departments?

Mr. Hayhoe: As I told the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion he asked this question, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Entry and Promotion

Mr. Dubs: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she is satisfied that women and members of ethnic minorities have equal opportunities of entry to and promotion within the Civil Service.

Mr. Hayhoe: The Civil Service has a long standing policy that there must be no discrimination, either before or after entry, against any person on account of race, ethnic origin, sex or marital status. The policy is widely known throughout the service and I am determined that it shall be rigorously applied.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that, without monitoring, he cannot enforce the equal opportunities policy, because he does not know whether it is being carried out? Given that he has the co-operation of at least some of the trade unions in following these policies, has he not a responsibility to set a good example to other employers?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are not convinced that censuses and the like are the most appropriate and effective ways of following matters through, using scarce resources and doing everything possible to ensure that discrimination is not taking place.

Mr. Soley: Is the Minister able to assure the House that his Department is using the newspapers representing the ethnic minority groups for the purpose of advertising vacancies?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am unable to answer that question without notice. I do not know whether ethnic group newspapers are being used. If the hon. Gentleman would care to table a question I shall ensure that it is answered.

Pay Dispute

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will make a statement on the current Civil Service dispute.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she will make a statement about the Civil Service pay dispute.

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will report the latest position on the Civil Service pay dispute.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in talks with the Civil Service unions concerning future machinery for the conduct of pay negotiations.

Mr. Hayhoe: Discussions with the Civil Service unions to see whether a basis can be found on which the present dispute can be brought to an end are continuing. The Government hope that they can be brought to an early and successful conclusion. I am sure that the House will understand if I do not go into any detail about the discussions at this stage.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tactics of the unions have alienated rather than gained public support? Is he aware that most people recognise that it is the unions that have gone on strike or are taking industrial action, not the Government? Will he therefore accept a brief message from my constituents which would sum up the position, namely, "Don't give 'em the money, Barney"?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that message from his constituency. It is not an entirely novel comment, but at least it is the first time that it has been used in the House on an occasion of this kind. I believe that the House would probably wish to express its concern about reports that militants within the Civil Service are proposing extended action. I hope that they will desist.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the three other hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the 18 per cent. increase for Members of Parliament—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Six per cent."]—how can the Minister possibly expect lower paid civil servants to settle for 7 per cent., which, with inflation still at 12 per cent. because of the failure of the Government's economic policies, is a reduction in real terms? Will the Government stop being so intransigent and stubborn and make a fairer offer to the civil servants that will help bring an end to the dispute, which is causing a great deal of inconvenience to the general public?

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that in the instance of the pay of Members of Parliament there is 6 per cent. new money on the table, compared with 7 per cent. new money on the table for civil servants.

Mr. Woolmer: Are the Government prepared to negotiate genuinely, to reach an honourable settlement and


to avoid a further escalation of industrial action and a worsening of industrial relations? Bearing in mind the origins of the dispute—the unilateral tearing up by the Government of a pay agreement and the right of arbitration—and the deep and genuine anger among hundreds of thousands of civil servants, will the Government now give an assurance that they will negotiate properly and show a degree of flexibility so as to avoid the escalation and a severe worsening of industrial relations that will be the result of the Government's obduracy?

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman makes part of the case deployed by the union leaders. As I said earlier, genuine discussions are going on with the unions at present. I do not propose to say anything here today which could jeopardise the results of those discussions.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that two-thirds of the civil servants involved receive less than two-thirds of average earnings? In those circumstances, does he think it reasonable to ask those men and women to accept a vicious cut in their standard of living by taking a 7 per cent. wage increase when we all know that inflation is about twice that rate? If the hon. Gentleman believes that his case is justified, why does he not refer it to arbitration?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not accept that two-thirds of those involved in the action are earning what the hon. Gentleman claims. I have said before in the House that two-thirds of civil servants receive less than average earnings.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: In the interests of fair play, I will call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the striking air traffic controllers that RAF people working alongside them at West Drayton and other places earn about two-thirds of the wages of air traffic controllers and are not allowed to strike?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not want to say anything that could be interpreted as intervening in the discussions that are taking place, but I am certain that the point made by my hon. Friend will be noted by those concerned.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not clear, three months into the dispute, that it was absurd for the Government to enter negotiations with a position of such rigidity that the only options available to the Civil service unions were to capitulate—which their members would not permit—or to fight the Government? Since next Monday's escalation to affect the Departments of Employment and Health and Social Security and the intensification of action at airports will result in a more direct impact on the public, will the Government accept at this late stage that arbitration offers an honourable way out for both sides, and a way out that has been accepted by the unions? If the Government are so convinced of the validity of their case, why are they afraid to argue it before an impartial body?

Mr. Hayhoe: The Government have made it clear from the start that the 6 per cent. cash limit for Civil Service pay will not be breached. I am sorry that in referring to the possible extension of action to affect social security and unemployment benefits the right hon. Gentleman did not ask those concerned not to take such action, which will cause considerable hardship to people in great need.

Abolition of Warrant Sales (Scotland)

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the existing practice of warrant sales and to replace it with a Debt Arbitration Service; and to control the employment and conduct of sheriff officers.
It is more than a year since I attempted to introduce a similar Bill which would have placed an embargo on the use of warrant sales in Scotland, pending the long-awaited report by the Scottish Law Commission on the law of diligence. I said at the time that warrant sales were a form of legalised intimidation whereby sheriff officers may, without the permission of a householder, enter a person's house and threaten to sell the furniture, often at a mere fraction of its real value, in order to clear a debt. The sale usually takes place at the debtor's home and is advertised in public, either in newspapers or by the door-to-door delivery of leaflets in the neighbourhood of the debtor.
Most of the debts that we are talking about are less than £100 and most of the individuals and families concerned are on low incomes. There is no legal obligation on the courts or anyone else to take into account the financial circumstances of the debtor.
Defenders of the status quo, who seem to include the Solicitor-General for Scotland, claim that the number of warrant sales in Scotland is only about 300 a year. I say that that is 300 too many and should point out that more than 3,000 sales are advertised every year and that more than 20,000 poindings take place. A poinding is an official valuation and earmarking of goods for a warrant sale and the poinding takes place in the debtor's home. Poinding and advertising can be distressing experiences for individuals and families, even if the sale is eventually called off.
Last year the Government refused to support my Bill and would not grant it any time beyond the First Reading stage. But much has happened since then. In October the Scottish Law Commission, after dragging its feet for the best part of a decade, eventually came out with some provisional proposals which would be an improvement on the status quo, though they fall short of the abolition that I propose.
The Scottish Law Commission proposed, for example, an extension of the list of articles that would be exempt from warrant sales. The list was originally introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) in a Private Member's Bill in 1973 and includes essential articles such as bedding, clothing, and heating appliances. The extension of this list would be an improvement, as would the proposal to take account of the financial circumstances of a debtor, and the provisional proposal to hold sales in auction rooms rather than in debtors' homes. That would at least help to respect the anonymity of the debtor and would help to achieve more realistic prices.
Some of the prices realised at warrant sales are ridiculously low. For example, a three-piece suite may fetch only £60, a radiogram £20 and a fridge £5. The carpet, vacuum cleaner and television set of one of my constituents were recently valued at a total of £37. It would have cost more than 10 times that amount to replace those articles.
The Scottish Law Commission is not the only body to have made recommendations about warrant sales. Earlier this week, the Faculty of Advocates came out in broad agreement with the commission. I understand that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is still a member of the Faculty of Advocates and, therefore, he appears to be at loggerheads with his own trade union on this vexed matter of warrant sales.
I should like to quote from a document in my possession:
The Warrant Sale is a distressing and obnoxious procedure which has become socially unacceptable in its present form and whose immediate reform is therefore desirable.
That quotation does not come from any Left-wing, radical, revolutionary literature. It comes from a memorandum on warrant sales published by the Scottish Tory Reform Group, the vice-presidents of which include the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for home affairs and the environment.
That is evidence of the groundswell of opinion among all shades of political views, with a few notable exceptions. I should add that four Conservative Members have agreed to sponsor my Bill. Many bodies and individuals throughout Scotland advocate reform and some would go even further and agree with me in seeking abolition of warrant sales.
The Labour-controlled Stirling district council has decided not to use warrant sales and many other local authorities are following its excellent example. The Scottish conference of the Labour Party favours abolition, as does the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. The print union SOGAT took direct action to stop the printing of newspaper advertisements for warrant sales, and they no longer appear in many Scottish newspapers. Unfortunately, one of the more unenlightened sheriffs in Scotland, sheriff principal John Dick of North Strathclyde has tried to get round the SOGAT ban by having a door-to-door delivery of leaflets in the neighbourhood of the debtor.
The whole coercive system is a form of public humiliation and punishment rather than a constructive attempt to get a debt repaid. My Bill proposes the abolition of warrant sales in all cases of personal debt and their replacement by a debt arbitration service which would provide the opportunity for the debtor and the creditor to come to a mutual agreement on repaying the debt by instalments, taking into account the financial circumstances of the debtor.
Failing a voluntary agreement, the arbitrator would be given the power to issue repayment orders payable, if necessary, at source from the wages or other income of the debtor. This seems to me a reasonable proposal. There seem to be only two major reasons behind the reluctance of some people to accept it. One is what can only be described as the vested interest of the legal mafia in Scotland, some of whom are making a fat living out of the whole system. Debt collecting is big business. A minority of people are exploiting the misery, the fear and the unfortunate circumstances of the debtors.
There are in many cases connections between firms of sheriff officers and private debt collecting agencies. It is not like the English bailiff system where the bailiff is a full-time court employee. Sheriff officers in Scotland are


often allowed to act more or less like private enterprise. My Bill would separate the functions of sheriff officer from that of private debt collecting agencies. A sheriff officer would become an employee of the court and therefore more accountable to the court and to the general public.
I also propose in my Bill a code of conduct for sheriff officers. Some high-handed bullying tactics and threatening behaviour have been used by sheriff officers, sometimes, but not always, in the execution of warrant sales and poindings. Not long ago, three children were dragged from their beds at half-past four in the morning by sheriff officers in the execution of a child custody order. More recently, a flat occupied by three young women in Glasgow was invaded by sheriff officers. The women were not even in debt. It appears that the debtor was the landlord but the women were served with the arrestment notice. The sheriff officers brought along joiners who used hammers and chisels to smash down a door. A newspaper cameraman who arrived to take photographs was prodded in the stomach with a screwdriver. It is time that these Gestapo tactics were outlawed in a civilised society.
The last principal objection to my proposed Bill would seem to come from those who say that my debt arbitration service would be expensive. In my view it would reduce the burden and therefore the expenditure of the courts. Most of the debts about which I am talking are not even contested. The debtor admits the debt and there is no need

to go to court to prove the debt. An arbitration service would help to get the debt repaid. Public expenditure would be kept to a minimum by putting a levy on some of the big credit companies that encourage people to get into more debt than they can afford.
Even if some public expenditure is necessary, it would be worth while. The pursuit and administration of justice cost money. Members of any society claiming to be civilised should be prepared to put their hands in their pockets and to rid Scotland once and for ever of a barbaric, inhuman and medieval relic that has caused undue hardship and misery to countless thousands of people and their families.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. James Dempsey, Mr. Gregor MacKenzie, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. David Myles, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. John MacKay, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Bill Walker and Dr. J. Dickson Mabon.

ABOLITION OF WARRANT SALES (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Dennis Canavan: accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the existing practice of warrant sales and to replace it with a Debt Arbitration Service; and to control the employment and conduct of sheriff officers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 July and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

Orders of the Day — British Nationality Bill

[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1

ACQUISITION BY BIRTH OR ADOPTION

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'citizen' to end of line 12 and insert
'unless
(a) his father or his mother is a member of a mission within the meaning of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964; or
(b) his father or mother is a member of a consular post of any State, as defined in section 7(2) of the Consular Relations Act 1968;
and in either case the child acquires the nationality of another State at birth.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, to leave out from "unless" to the first "the" in line 7, and amendment No. 77, in clause 9, page 8, line 44, at end insert
'unless at that time he holds another citizenship'.

Mr. Hattersley: The object of the amendment is to re-establish the principle that with the sole exception of children born to foreign diplomats serving in this country every child born in the United Kingdom should enjoy British citizenship automatically, unquestioningly and without the need to demonstrate any other qualification other than that the child was born on British soil. The principle that every child born here should automatically and unquestioningly be British has been at the heart of the definition of British nationality ever since the concept of British nationality has had any meaning. It was generally agreed in Committee that the principle goes back at least 700 years. The Government now seek to change that principle by limiting British citizenship to children one of whose parents was
ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom … without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he may remain.
Clause 1 offers citizenship only to the children of settled—that is the term of art—parents. Clause 46(2), as amended in Committee, defines "settled" in the way I have described. Parents are settled if they are ordinarily resident here without being subject to any immigration control or
to any restriction on the period for which
they remain.
We propose, as an alternative to the limitation on the principle, the simple reassertion of the established idea and, I might almost say, the established ideal. Putting aside the necessary exception of the children of diplomats, clause 1, if the amendment is carried, will read:
A person born in the United Kingdom …shall be a British citizen.
That assertion seems to us to be right in principle and in practice. To qualify the principle in the way proposed by the Government has two highly undesirable and, for some families, I would argue, disastrous effects.
It disqualifies from citizenship a number of children who will, in consequence of disqualification, suffer certain disadvantage and possible hardship. Secondly, it creates among a much larger number of children who, with the passage of time, will turn into British adults and British citizens, with all the rights of citizenship, a quite intolerable uncertainty about their status and their place in society. In practice, it will create a situation in which a large number of British citizens by birth will be required at some point in their lives to prove that they are British citizens by birth in a way that no British citizen has been asked to prove before.
Those hon. Members who understand these problems will realise that where proof is required, where proof is necessary and where proof is demanded, that proof will invariably be demanded of black British or British children of Asian parents or grandparents. It will not be the children and grandchildren of hon. Members, if the amendment is defeated, who will be required at some point to demonstrate their British status. It will be the children and grandchildren of the immigrants who came here in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s who will be required to prove and to demonstrate that they are free and equal citizens.
Since the Bill, if it is not amended, will have that effect, it is another example of how this measure, whatever the intentions of its authors and no matter how honourable or noble their purpose, will cause specific problems to the ethnic minorities and their families. It is therefore another example of how the Bill is racial in effect whatever the intentions of its sponsors.
I justify that serious allegation by examining the way in which the disqualification from citizenship under clause 1 as it stands and under clause 46(2) will work. Its intention, according to the Minister of State, speaking in Committee, is to disqualify from British citizenship the children of students, visitors, overstayers, and other illegal immigrants. In Committee, the Minister of State dissociated himself from the press briefing that was given by the Home Office shortly before Second Reading, which largely concerned temporary visitors to this country. He said that the proposal was not aimed at births in transit lounges or at public monuments, though he slipped into the old briefing about the temporary visitor who came here frequently because of additional travel facilities by talking about births to mothers who were en route elsewhere. The airlines which fly to Britain are still perturbed and puzzled to think that a Minister of the Crown should regard births to mothers en route elsewhere as possible, since their international regulations preclude the transit of pregnant women. However, that is by the way.
The Minister's real argument was not about the fear of births in the Tate Gallery or the National Theatre, but about people here illegally whose children born during their stay here would subsequently accept and be granted British citizenship. He relied on the justification for this qualification which appears in paragraph 43 of the White Paper. It says:
the Government's main uneasiness on this score
—that is, allowing people not permanently settled here to transmit British nationality to their children—
is that allowing birth to confer citizenship on such a child
—that is, a child whose parent is not normally resident here—
means … that after he returns with his parents to their country,
—the country of his parent's birth—


his own children, born years later, will be British Citizens by descent
and would
form a pool of considerable size".
I shall paraphrase that paragraph, because it contains an extraordinary contention—if it means what it says. The Government's main unease that causes them to break the 700-year-old principle that every child born here is British is that a number of children will be born here to temporary residents, they will go home with the parents who were temporary residents, they will then give birth to children who will become British by descent, and those third generation children will then flood back into the United Kingdom. One has only to paraphrase the paragraph to see how absurd it is.
If one reads the paragraph again, one realises the preoccupation that has prompted the Government in this direction. It says that to allow the potential entry of these almost inconceivable categories of persons
would form a pool of considerable size
—that is, a pool of immigrants. We are back to the watery metaphors so enjoyed and exploited by the Government. The Prime Minister talks, wrongly, about immigrants flooding in. The White Paper talks about pools. They both demonstrate that the Bill is concerned not with nationality but with restrictions on immigration. The basic principle of nationality that everyone born here is automatically British is being eroded, because the Government fear that not to erode that principle would be to allow in people the Government feel should be excluded.
That is an example of the immigration base of what claims to be a nationality Bill, and it is also an example of the divide between the two parties. The Labour Government's Green Paper three years ago said
a child born here by accident is not likely, by and large, to exercise his claim to our citizenship.
That is surely true. Following that conclusion, paragraph 34 of that document said, quite firmly, that a Labour Government would maintain the principle that every child born in Britain should be British without question and without qualification. The Labour Government said that because of the hardship that would be caused to children who would be excluded from British citizenship by this proviso.
In Committee, I gave an example from my constituency of what might have happened to a family in Sparkbrook had the Bill been law over the past 10 years. It concerned a married couple who were citizens of Pakistan and who were in this country, wholly legally, reading medicine at a British university. During their undergraduate years, they were staying with their parents in my constituency who had been born in Pakistan and who had acquired British citizenship and the right to reside here. During the first year of their student life in Britain the couple gave birth to a son who, under the Bill, would not be British because his parents were not ordinarily resident here.
The child remained in the United Kingdom for the subsequent four years of his parents' undergraduate career. When he was five, he entered a British primary school, even though his parents returned to the country of their birth, Pakistan, and practised medicine in Islamabad. He remained with his grandparents, as many children have done throughout the ages, to obtain the benefits of the superior education that his parents believed were available to him in the United Kingdom. He stayed with his grandparents for the subsequent three years, but, before going to another school at the age of 12, he went home to

visit his parents for a year. By spending a year with them, he was disqualified from the Government's one concession that a child, although born to parents not resident in the United Kingdom, may achieve British nationality if he lives here for the subsequent period without long periods of absence from the country.
The child had one period of absence and reached the age of 14, having spent 13 years in the United Kingdom, having no experience of any country other than the United Kingdom, having no education other than that of the United Kingdom, and having no language other than English—an unusual fact—only to discover that under the Bill he was not a British subject.
I put that case to the Minister, who answered in three parts. First, he said that the child would not be British, despite the length and depth of his British experience. Second, the Minister could not give a clear assurance as to what nationality the child would possess. There was a real chance that he would be stateless. The third part was the catch-all on which all beleaguered Ministers depend when they attempt to justify such Bills, that the Secretary of State has the power and discretion to make a specific allowance in such hard cases.
To say that as long as there is a reasonable Home Secretary everything will be all right is not an adequate justification or defence. Hard cases—of which Labour Members can give examples time after time—will involve individuals who know no life other than the British life and who discover that because of this simple qualification they are no longer British and, indeed, never have been British.
The suffering that arises from such a scheme is largely the result of the Government's obsession with overstaying and illegal immigration. No one doubts the existence of overstaying and illegal immigration. No one does other than deplore overstaying and illegal immigration. If there is control of immigration, as there has to be, the illegal immigrant and the overstayer prejudice the chances of the people who have a legitimate right to enter. I in no way defend illegal immigration, but I know, from my experience, that it does not exist to the extent which justifies its being used as the basis for a British Nationality Bill.
Already the Government's obsession with immigration overstayers and illegal immigrants is preventing the entry into Britain of bona fide visitors, separating wives from husbands and preventing children from joining their parents in Britain. That the wrong application of that obsession has such practical consequences is bad enough. That it should be extended into a principle that determines how nationality is defined is more than deplorable: it is a disgrace. It is a particular disgrace in its practical application because of applying it in the way that the Government do and by saying that a child is British if its parents are normally resident here, but not British if its parents are subject to the paragraph 43 qualification, the Government are introducing a major uncertainty into the lives of tens of thousands of immigrants.
4 pm
The case that I described is hypothetical in a sense because it relates to existing law. Under the Bill the consequences that I described will apply. In that case at no time will the boy of 16 know or be told that his nationality or citizenship status is in doubt.
On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister gave an assurance which we welcomed and applauded. He


said that when a child is born in the United Kingdom and its mother or father registers the birth there will be no question of the registrar requiring a demonstration that the parents are normally resident here and stamping the birth certificate according to the status of the parents and therefore describing the nationality status of the child.
The Minister and I are at one in believing that it would be intolerable if the registrar or his officials carried out such an inquiry when every registration was made. The registrar is right to do that. However, there is no escaping from the question at some point during the lives of many British citizens.
I can give three examples in terms of my constituency because such problems arise there. The citizenship status and nationality of many children in my constituency will be questioned at three stages in their lives: first at the age of 14 when they apply for a passport to go on a school trip to France; secondly, when at the age of 16 they want to join the Army; and, thirdly, at the age of 18 or 21 when they are no longer children, when they want to enter the competitive examination that may result in entry to the Civil Service.
On each occasion it will be necessary to demonstrate citizenship status. If the Bill is passed unamended, two things will happen. First, some young people—and in the case of the Civil Service perhaps not such young people—may suddenly discover that, despite what they believed about their birth, condition and citizenship, they are not British after all. They might discover that their parents were immigrant students or overstayers and stayed with friends or relations in the innocent belief that they were entitled to do that. Eventually they could discover that they were not British and that the Government did not know or even care about their status. That would be the tragedy of individuals who after inquiry discovered that they did not enjoy British citizenship.
I do not know how many people will be involved. Everyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. On 12 February the Minister said that no figures existed but that we were discussing a matter of principle. Perhaps a substantial number of people will discover to their astonishment that they are not British.
I regard as more important the equally certain fact that a much larger number of people who are British by birth will be required to demonstrate their British status. That is my major objection. By differentiating between the classes of child born in Britain and by making a distinction between children's nationality status, many people will be asked to demonstrate that they are British.
Let us not be mealy-mouthed about who such people will be. If the sons or grandsons of hon. Members go to the passport office and ask for a passport they will not be asked to demonstrate that they are British because they are white and have British names. The people who will be asked to demonstrate their bona fides will be the black British. They are absolutely British because they were born here and their parents were resident here when they were born. There is no question of their going home because they are home already. This is the only home that they have known. However, because they fit into the category of doubt and suspicion, they will be asked to prove that their parents were ordinarily resident here at the time of their birth.
I have no way of knowing how easy or difficult it will be for children to demonstrate their British status. In many cases it will be extremely difficult. The Minister brushed the difficulties aside in Committee. He said that careful and prudent parents would establish their children's citizenship at an early age. He demonstrated how little he understands the problems in the areas and communities involved. He said that school records might be a help. He gave bland assurances about the ease with which a true British status could be demonstrated. I quarrel with him about the ease with which that can be done.
Even if that demonstration were as easy as the Minister says, my main objection to the Government's proposal is that some people will have to demonstrate their citizenship.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Proving residence here for 10 years might be helped by school records. However, the real difficulty is not that the child has to prove what happened to him because he can produce a birth certificate to show that he was born here. The difficulty is in proving his parents' immigration status when he was born. The child might have no knowledge of that and it might be difficult for the parents to prove their status at that late stage.

Mr. Hattersley: I agree.
Proof might be required in two areas, in both of which it will be difficult. First, the child who is British because his parents were ordinarily resident here at the time of his birth will have to prove his citizenship. A man of about 21 about to enter the Civil Service may find it difficult to prove the status of his parents 21 years before. The second category involves the Government's concession—that, even if a parent was not normally resident here, a child who has been resident for 10 years and not been absent for 90 days in any one of the 10 years shall be allowed British citizenship.
That a man or woman of 18, having demonstrated that his or her parents were not ordinarily resident here at the time of his or her birth should have to prove residence for 10 years without being out of the country for 90 days, is difficult to understand. I hope that the Minister will explain whether the onus of proof will be on the applicant or whether the onus of disproof will be on the Home Office.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seem to suggest that when a child seeks to establish residence for 10 years the parents' status is also involved. That is not so. The parents' status does not have to be established.

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) did not say that. When I answered his intervention, I carefully distinguished between the two categories. In one case there is a necessity to demonstrate the parents' status—British by birth—and in the other there is a necessity to demonstrate behaviour in the last 10 years. They are different demonstrations, but equally difficult to demonstrate—or they will be for many of those involved.

Mr. Jim Marshall: While the former category mentioned by my right hon. Friend—those who have to show their citizenship by both


birth and the status of parents—will be discriminatory in the way that my right hon. Friend made clear, is it not also clear that that qualification and necessity will be imposed on every future British citizen, irrespective whether he be white, black or yellow? Although in practice it may be discriminatory against the black community, it is nevertheless an obligation on every one of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Hattersley: I want to dwell on my hon. Friend's point. While the Minister and I may argue about the need and ability to demonstrate British citizenship, the real objection to the clause is the one to which my hon. Friend has referred. There will be a theoretical obligation upon us all to demonstrate that we are British in a way that will he more detailed than in the past. Previously, if one was born in Britain there was no question about status. In future, in theory we must all demonstrate more than the simple fact that we were born in Britain.
If the Minister wants me to be precise, the fact is that people born after the commencement of the powers contained in the Bill will have to demonstrate their British status by proving more than that they were born in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend was right to say that a theoretical obligation would be imposed on every new British citizen born after the Bill comes into effect. But I repeat—and I know that my hon. Friend agrees—that in practice the questions about status, the obligations to provide proof, the demands to show the parents' status and behaviour during the past 10 years will always be applied to British citizens whose parents or grandparents are West Indian or Asian. It will not be applied to those who look British as commonly imagined. It will be applied to those who do not look British, as prejudicially conceived. That will be disastrous to community relations in Britain.
It is no good me, or anybody else, saying to the ethnic minorities and to immigrants' children and grandchildren—by definition, we are talking not about immigrants but about those who are British by birth—that they are as British as anybody else because they were born in Britain when their parents were properly resident here, because they know that in practice their status will probably be questioned by every official office, on every official document, and whenever an important matter arises about their relationship with the State. That would not be the case if they were British and white.
The need for the clause has not been justified by anything that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary have said. The Minister of State said that no figures were available. He cannot tell us how many undesirable immigrants might be allowed into Britain if he returned to the old principle that everybody born in Britain is British. He has no idea of what the additional immigration load might be. However, he can give figures about illegal immigration, which are wholly irrelevant, and figures about temporary stays in Britain, which are equally irrelevant. He said in Committee that it is a matter of principle. It is also a matter of principle to the Labour Party. It is a matter of principle about the nature of British society, about the definition of who is British and about our attitude towards those who live in British society. I regard distinguishing between them as both absurd and squalid.
I hope that even now the Government will repent. On behalf of the small group who will be penalised, and the

much larger group who will be made uncertain—and therefore penalised also—I hope that even now the Government will change their mind and, will accept amendment No. 1.

Mr. David Steel: I want to intervene briefly as one of the sundry persons referred to by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as having signed the amendment. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I have not done so in any casual way. Members of both the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party decided to sign the amendment because it is not a technical amendment but one of profound and basic principle, affecting the attitude of our society towards those who live in our midst.
Having read the exchanges in Committee, one basic question still baffles me. The overwhelming majority of children born in Britain to immigrant parents will be British citizens on birth. Yet after the Bill becomes law a birth certificate will no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship. From that simple fact many administrative and human problems will flow. So far, the Government have failed to give the reasons for such a fundamental change.
The Government are introducing uncertainty and complexity into a highly sensitive area of law. They are introducing cumbersome administration and additional cost. They may well unwittingly increase statelessness. The Government gave twin reasons for the proposed change. First, they say, the objective of the Bill is to define British citizens as those with close connections with the United Kingdom, and that that should not extend to a child born to parents staying temporarily in Britain.
As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was careful to point out, the original argument produced in support of that submission—the increased use of air travel—was nonsense because people do not come to Britain temporarily simply to have children. Even if they did, presumably they can come by land or sea and stay for a considerable time. The numbers who come to Britain deliberately to have a child born here must be minimal.
The second Government argument is more worrying. They say that children having acquired British citizenship may then live abroad and transmit British citizenship by descent. Paragraph 43 of the White Paper states that such people
would form a pool of considerable size".
That is already the case. If the Government believe that that is a problem they are duty bound to demonstrate why it is a problem under existing law. I am not convinced that there is a problem.
I endorse the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the certainty of a child born here, irrespective of parentage, that he is a British citizen has been an important factor in encouraging the security of the ethnic minorities. Even a limited departure from that basic principle undermines that security, which is already undermined enough. It has aroused the fear that, in the hands of a different Government or a different Home Secretary. such a change could pave the way to a future denial of citizenship to children born of immigrant parents.
Perhaps the most direct and permanent effect of the change is that it will be necessary not for those affected by the Bill in law, but for the entire non-white community in our midst to be prepared to produce documents or


evidence of their citizenship at various points in their lives. I am already disturbed by the cases now occurring. For example, people are being required to produce evidence that, as citizens, they are entitled to treatment under the National Health Service. I am sure that the House deplores that. But that sort of practice will increase if we approve the proposal. There will be other problems, and not only in the hospitals.
What will happen in schools where there is a substantial ethnic minority? When school trips are organised and a collective form of passport is taken up, will the school teachers have to investigate the rights to citizenship of every child, because a birth certificate will not be enough proof of citizenship?
We seem to be in grave danger of paving the way to a pass law society where certain people will have to carry evidence of citizenship, perhaps not in the form of an identity card—we would all react adversely to that—but in the form of a letter from the Home Office, as was suggested by the Minister in Committee. I still find the principle repugnant. It is for that reason that we support the amendment. We hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will have a change of heart and that they will find some Government Members who have resisted the attractions of Derby day to turn their attention to an extremely important change of fundamental principle which is being proposed in British law.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: This group of amendments is important and crucial to the Bill. I cannot support the proposition put forward by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), because it would weaken the Bill considerably. It would extend the rights to British citizenship far wider than it would be wise to do. I note that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) talked about the black British and about matters of principle. Most Opposition amendments, both in Committee and on Report, are in some way tied up with supporting the so-called rights of the immigrant community. Hon. Members who tabled the amendments tend to forget or to overlook easily the rights of the indigenous white population.
There has been much talk about a multi-racial society. That has occurred in a way not wanted by political parties in the past and certainly not wanted by the indigenous white population. The question whether there should be a multi-racial society has never been put before the electorate. If the electorate had ever been offered the opportunity to give an opinion I know what the result would have been. It would not have been in favour of the position in which, unfortunately, we find ourselves, with an immigrant community in our midst ranging from 2½ million to 3 million.
The answer would have been that there should be firm immigration control. That has been the view of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party at successive general elections, although not of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook mentioned once again his support for firm immigration control. We should pay a little more attention in the debate to the effect on the indigenous white population of amendments that would weaken the Bill by widening the right to citizenship.
I wish to support amendment No. 77 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends on the question of dual

nationality. It relates to clause 9, which deals with citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are to become British citizens at the date of commencement of the measure and proposes that that should not occur if at that time they hold another citizenship. I raised this subject briefly on Second Reading. My worry was that the Bill did not deal with dual nationality.
I understood from the White Paper that was issued before the publication of the Bill that there were thought to be about 3 million citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with dual nationality who were exempt from United Kingdom immigration control, of whom 1 million were currently resident in the United Kingdom. I should have thought that it was a reasonable contention that when we are looking at British nationality and citizenship we should look also at the question of dual nationality. The matter was raised in vain in Committee. Therefore, the amendment seeks to redress the balance.
Citizenship is a question of loyalty—loyalty to one's country in the basic analysis. It is difficult to have divided or dual loyalties. Therefore, it would be a good idea, especially at this time of recasting the nationality laws, to look at dual nationality. Amendment No. 77 seeks to provide that people who have nationality of another country, whether it be the West Indies, Africa or the Asian Sub-continent, should not automatically gain British citizenship.

Mr. John Sever: I am happy to support the amendment that was moved so admirably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). As a fellow Member of Parliament for Birmingham, he is well acquainted with the situation in that area, where members of ethnic minority communities undoubtedly feel uneasy, to put it at its simplest, about the matters that the House is discussing this week.
One thing that disturbs my right hon. Friend and myself is that the Bill, which is crucial not only to representatives of ethnic minority communities, but to many others, pays scant regard to future race relations in Britain. It is a matter of deep concern to those of us who take an interest in the Bill that the Government should have provided an opportunity for those who wish to oppose them to argue that they are not concerned with race relations or racial harmony, particularly in areas such as Birmingham where these matters are important.
The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) referred in passing to the fears that substantial numbers of the community have about the way in which the Bill will operate when enacted and whether it may be seen, as many see it, with justifiable concern, as the introduction to a system that will eventually lead to members of ethnic minority communities having to carry identification passes or a wallet full of documentation to prove who they are, where they come from, how they got here and who their mums and dads were. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would develop his argument, because I am sure that he would have done a good job on it. The fears to which he referred are fears of the sort that a wise Government would have taken steps to avoid in the presentation of a Bill of this importance.

Mr. Raison: It is nonsensical to talk in those terms. The only occasion on which a person might have to


produce documents would be when he was applying for a passport or on a limited number of other occasions during his life. Nothing in our scheme could possibly lead anyone to believe that people would have to carry documents and passports all the time. Such an argument is fallacious. Nothing in the Bill justifies it.

Mr. Sever: At the moment it may be possible to argue that the ethnic minority communities have nothing to fear, but the concern is that at some time in the not-too-distant future there may be an extension or development of the proposals in the Bill that would lead to a worsening of the position, the introduction of the measures I have described, and would mean that people would have to carry passes, identification papers and all the rest.

Mr. David Steel: Surely the Minister does not disagree that, unhappily, this is already happening in some cases. I gave examples. Surely he does not dissent either from the proposition that his proposal will lead to a greater number of occasions on which that will happen. It is no good his shaking his head. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) listed a number of occasions when such documentation will be required, and the Minister has admitted that there will be such occasions. When I used the phrase "pass law" I was arguing that the Bill was leading us down a dangerous slope.

Mr. Sever: That is right. As I suspected, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has made a better job of putting over the argument than I did. The fear exists. The difficulty is that many people in the ethnic minority communities feel that the Bill is the first step down the slippery slope to which the right hon. Member referred. The Government could have been bold and forthright. They could have produced a Bill that would have tidied up the nationality laws, something that many hon. Members on both sides of the House concede is necessary. They could have done that without introducing any element of fear among the ethnic minorities. The Government have not done that, and that is why they are encountering so much hostility towards their proposals, both within the House and outside.
The burden of my argument remains that we have missed an opportunity with the Bill to tidy up the nationality laws and produce a measure that would be widely accepted throughout the various communities and would not create worry among those who may feel threatened by the Government's proposals.
The Government seem to be going against world opinion, which is that all Governments should reduce the amounts and threat of statelessness. The Government have paid a degree of lip-service to the international conventions aimed at reducing statelessness, but they are now seeking to enact a Bill that will lead to an enormous increase in statelessness and jeopardise the future of many people. They are doing that while appearing to agree that the threat to those whose statehood may be in question should be reduced. They cannot have it both ways. Either they must take positive steps towards reducing statelessness or they must not introduce measures such as the Bill, which will undeniably increase the risk of it.
Those points are crucial to the way in which the ethnic minorities view the Bill, but the Government have been less than helpful about them. Heaven knows, the quality of race relations in Britain is not good enough, but by their action the Government are creating fears in those

minorities that it will decline. I therefore hope that the House will express its views today on this difficult and delicate matter by supporting my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I wish to say a few words about amendment No. 77 One of the saddest aspects of the Bill is that it has not grasped the difficult nettle of dual nationality. Those who are most likely to be disadvantaged by that failure are the members of the New Commonwealth and Pakistan ethnic group. If they had been able to say that they had given up their allegiance to their country of origin and had irrevocably become citizens of the United Kingdom they would have made it plain to all that they were here to stay. They would have demonstrated their common allegiance to the customs, traditions and loyalties of our country.
The disadvantage to those people was perhaps best illustrated yesterday by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) when he complained eloquently during the speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he had been held to be ineligible for service in the Royal Navy because, he said, his father had been refused naturalisation after living here for 30 blameless years. I expect that in law there was an absolute bar against his father serving in the Armed Forces. It is probable that the hon. Gentleman encountered a discretionary bar.
It is now fashionable for all of us to consider the reintroduction of some form of national service. Hon. Members on both sides of the House talk in terms of some form of youth or national service, or service to the State, to help alleviate the problem of youth unemployment and channel the undoubted idealism of our young people into a worthwhile cause. The great virtue of the old national service was that it was compulsory. Any selective form of national service that could be seen as punishment for those who were unfortunate enough to be unemployed would, I believe, be highly divisive. But what would happen if some form of compulsory national service, directed primarily towards service in the Armed Forces, were imposed now? A substantial minority of people in this country now enjoy, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would put it, the advantages of dual nationality. But would it be possible or even desirable to compel the members of that minority to serve in the Armed Forces?
I recently attended a meeting in Wolverhampton at which the various groups representing those who were formerly described as immigrants, but who rightly no longer are so described, were giving their views about what they called "mother tongue education". We had a long discussion about whether that would create further divisions in the community. During that discussion I was handed a document by the Indian Workers' Association. I did not obtain it by any subterfuge. The intention was plainly that I should read it carefully.
I find at the back the aims and objectives of the Indian Workers' Association. They are:
To organise Indians to
(i) safeguard and improve their conditions of life and work;"
—there is nothing of great interest in that—[Interruption.] There is nothing objectionable in that. It is perfectly understandable. I appreciate that the association makes that its first objective. I hope that the House will listen to its second objective in the light of what I said about allegiance and possible national service:


(ii) seek co-operation and unity with the Indian High Commission in the United Kingdom towards fulfilment of its aims and objects
—I am sure this will be of interest to many hon. Members.—
(iii)promote co-operation and unity with the trade union and Labour movement in Great Britain
We hope that the objectives of the British Government, as the Government change from time to time, will always coincide with the objectives of the Indian Government, but we cannot be sure that that is so. We would put our Armed Services in a difficult position if, for the sake of argument, we were to recruit by compulsion large numbers of persons whose principal allegiance is to——

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I listened carefully to the second object which my hon. Friend described. I wonder whether that second object is more objectionable than the perfectly understandable attitude of many United Kingdom Jews who seek to promote Zionism. I do not think that we would regard that as objectionable. If that is right, I do not see why we should regard the second objective as objectionable.

Mr. Budgen: If there are those who wish to promote Zionism, it is better that they should have citizenship only in the United Kingdom; then they demonstrate in their advocacy of Zionism that it is in no way inconsistent with their loyalty to the British Crown. That is a perfectly reasonable position for them to hold.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to encourage the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to make one of his over-long speeches——

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Who is talking?

Mr. Budgen: I have nearly finished.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West show the relevance of amendment No. 77 to Indian citizens living in this country? He may be unaware, as he usually is unaware of the most important point, that Indian citizens are not eligible for dual citizenship, so that amendment No. 77 is not applicable either to Indian citizens living in this country or to the the vast majority of members of the Indian Workers' Association in this country.

Mr. Budgen: They cannot in their own country have dual nationality, but they can here.

Mr. Hattersley: No.

Mr. Budgen: Even if in respect of India I am wrong, and I do not believe I am wrong, it still illustrates the general proposition that I am making.
In objective (iv) the Indian Workers' Association makes plain the difference between allegiance to India and allegiance to this country. The fourth objective is to
strengthen friendship with the British and all other peoples in Great Britain and co-operate with their organisations to this end".
There is a world of difference between strengthening friendship, which is a proper objective in our attitudes towards the Indian Government of the day, and seeking cooperation and unity with the Indian High Commission.

Mr. David Steel: I wonder whether, in his travels overseas, the hon. Gentleman ever had a chance to look at the constitution of, say, a Caledonian society in Canada or a St. George's society somewhere in the middle of Africa. He would find similar provisions there.

Mr. Budgen: If the Caledonian Society is in the United States of America, where there is no dual nationality, the fears I am pointing to cannot sensibly be put forward. I am simply saying that, so long as we retain a system of dual nationality, the fears I put forward can sensibly be considered and raise real problems.

Mr. John Stokes: An even more serious point is that if the United Kingdom should unfortunately ever be involved in a war, would the people over here who have dual nationality be prepared to fight, and if necessary to die, for this country?

Mr. Budgen: Perhaps they would. By continuing the system of dual nationality we deny them the right to make their allegiance plain. We do them a great disservice. Although I know that it is done out of a spirit of kindliness, it is also done because we are not prepared to face a most disagreeable issue.

Mr. J Enoch Powell: I have not hitherto sought to catch the eye of the Chair in this debate because, as amendment (a) to amendment No. 1 which stands in my name and is being considered in connection with it, raises a substantially different issue, it seemed to me right that the debate on amendment No. 1 should develop to a certain point. But there is this that is germane both to the substance of amendment No. 1 and to my amendment (a) and also to amendment No.77 to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen) has been speaking: It is that they all draw attention to aspects and consequences of the change in the basis of nationality which is what the Bill is really about.
It is the second revolutionary change which has been enacted in the basis of our nationality within a generation. A generation separates those two revolutionary changes.
In 1948, although it was modified by the principle of citizenship basically the old doctrine of jus soli continued. We maintained the principle for which the official Opposition have contended throughout the proceedings on the Bill—I was no more than teasing when I described it as the feudal principle, although indeed it is feudal in origin—namely, that birth within a place determining citizenship derives historically from the old concept that whatever grows upon the soil is the property of the lord of the soil, an aspect of the concept of dominion.
Our nationality by birth within the allegiance, which was altered by the 1948 Act, was essentially nationality by jus soli. It was birth within territory, albeit birth which attracted allegiance by virtue of being born within the dominions of the Crown. That had been the system and the essence of our nationality before 1948.
In 1948 we did a remarkaable thing. We shifted the basis from allegiance to citizenship. We stated that the whole body of British subjects was the total of those who enjoyed one or more various citizenships—the citizenships of the then already independent former dominions and a new citizenship comprising the residuum, described as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. To that extent we altered, although we did not abandon, jus soli. We altered it to the extent that citizenship had to be the gateway through which the basic status of subjecthood was, in the eyes of United Kingdom law, attained.
Unfortunately at that time, and for many years afterwards, we did not base the attributes, rights and


privileges of nationality upon citizenship. Indeed, the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies which we had artificially created was so wide and so diffuse as not to afford a rational basis for the conferment of rights and duties. Instead of that we persisted with the old universal British subjecthood as being the essence of nationality in the law of this country and the key to the exercise of the characteristic rights of a national. It was because we did so that the immense change in our population structure came about that has been experienced in the past 30 years.
Whereas all the other parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth continued to restrict the rights of citizenship to their own citizens and to do so—I make no criticism of this—in a highly restrictive manner which in many instances was a continuation of what had been the policy of the colonial or imperial Government, we did not do the same. We did not, for example, restrict the right of entry to this realm to the possessors of citizenship. We attributed it, as before 1948, to the possessors of British subjecthood.
The result of that is the present situation, for example, in the metropolis. In Greater London as a whole, 20 per cent. of the births that occur year by year are to new Commonwealth ethnic parents. In inner London those births probably account for a third of the total, and in some parts of inner London they probably account for more than a half. That tremendous change, with all its consequences, whatever they may be, arose as a result of what we did and what we failed to do in the enactment of 1948; and stating that, as has been frequently said in the course of these proceedings, I find myself entirely at one with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
We are now, after the revolution of a generation, to make another fundamental change. We are now to shift the fundamental basis from jus soli to jus sanguinis, as anyone may read in the first few lines of clause 1, which state that a British citizen is a child born to a British citizen. However, there is still an admixture of the old principle—for the child is one who is born in the United Kingdom—and there is included an alternative qualification, namely, that of the parent being settled in the United Kingdom at the time of the birth.
Thus we have not moved to a new and self-consistent principle of jus sanguinis, where the credentials of the citizen by birth are essentially the credentials of his parent or parents, as in other countries where the law of nationality is jus sanguinis. Instead we have a mixture.
Amendment No. 1 draws attention to one of the inconvenient consequences. There are apt to be inconvenient consequences in a blend, almost any blend to choice, of two inherently different principles. In admitting the jus soli, we have had to face the question of birth in the United Kingdom to parents who are not themselves British subjects; and on the definition adopted for this alternative qualification the Government have run into real difficulties.
I do not think that the Opposition's arguments can be treated lightly. If, under the second qualification, British citizenship depends upon the status of the parents in respect of their settlement here at the time of the birth, problems of documentation are created which did not exist under the unadulterated jus soli and which would not exist in the same form or to the same intensity under the alternative principle of sanguinis. I do not believe—I think I listened to everything that was said on this subject in Committee—that as yet the Government have addressed

themselves sufficiently to this problem of documentation. The Minister of State intervened today to say that it will only be occasionally that the question will arise of the status of the parents of a citizen qualifying under the alternative conditions. So be it. I do not think that one would be disposed to doubt that, and the hon. Gentleman is obviously right when he says that we shall not be stopped in the street every other day and asked to prove our citizenship.
However, it is at crucial times and at crucial moments, often at unexpected times and perhaps in emergency, that a person has for certain necessary purposes to prove what his nationality is.
I do not believe that the Government have so far come to grips with the problem, and I regard that as justification for the narrower debate raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The Government have not brought forward any unequivocal description of the manner in which they would expect those qualifying under the alternative condition normally to provide themselves with the means of proving their status when necessary and wherever necessary.
So the Opposition have said "Let us return to the jus soli. Let us go for simplicity. Let us have a clean solution. Let us return to the old principle that everyone born here is ipso facto a British citizen." That is where the debate on the first principle drifts, as it were, into the debate on the second principle. For if, as things now are in this country, we endow with British citizenship all who are born in the United Kingdom, we shall endow with citizenship a large number of persons who are by birth citizens of the country of origin of their parents. That is why the issue of dual citizenship, which is a material one and is a matter of debate and difference between the nations of the earth, comes to be considered at this stage, as it has been previously, in the study of the Bill.
The amendment that I have proposed to amendment No. 1, like amendment No. 77 that is being taken with it, raises straight out, though it does so in a different context, the question whether dual nationality in this sense is advisable.
If my amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted, no one born in the United Kingdom would be stateless. That is certain and clear. I make no apology whatsoever for that consequence, because I believe it to be inherently monstrous to accept statelessness on the part of a person who is born in the United Kingdom. But if that person would not otherwise be stateless, it would provide that the nationality which he had by birth under the laws of the country of origin of his parents should prevail, at any rate until the person concerned or his parents availed themselves of the other provisions of the Bill in order deliberately to acquire British nationality.
I admit that this does not display the whole issue of dual nationality. Probably, no single amendment to the. Bill could do that. I am content to treat the matter upon the narrower ground of the amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment which stands in my name.
It has been said throughout and said, when one has translated the conventional expressions, correctly that race relations or community relations dominate much of our consideration of the Bill. That is perfectly correct; and they dominate our decision on the matter which is now raised before the House by the amendments being discussed.
Of the persons being born in this country today to new Commonwealth ethnic parents, a large majority are by birth citizens of the country of origin of their parents. It is true that that majority gradually and slowly diminishes with the effluxion of time, as the second generation born here becomes more and more perceptible. However, for the time being and for many years to come, it will still be true to say that the majority of such children hold the citizenship of the countries of their parents.
My contention is that we ought not by our legislation to impose upon those children the citizenship of this country, especially as in any case it is available to them at their or their parents' option under later provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the statement which he made regarding the nationality of children whose parents were born in New Commonwealth countries would not apply to the children of East African Asians, of whom some 50,000 or 60,000 live in Leicester, part of which I represent?

Mr. Powell: I am well aware of that. Those people form a minority amongst the births which I am mentioning. I had thought that the hon. and learned Member was not going to say East African, but East European; for the same would be true. In many cases where people have come to this country from Eastern Europe as refugees or otherwise, their former countries have denied to them, and certainly would deny to the next generation, the citizenship of their countries of origin.
I return to the general case why I consider that we are making the wrong choice. I preface this by saying that in my proposition there is no sort of disrespect for other nationalities or those who hold other nationalities. I am prepared to apply to my proposition what is known as the Golden Rule:
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.
Let us invert the situation and see how it looks the other way round. Here is a child born, let us say, in China or in Peru—either will do—to British parents. Under our law, including the law which we are here making, he is a British citizen. Does anyone suggest that it would be a ground of outrage or indignation or would be regarded as insulting that that child should not have conferred upon it Peruvian or Chinese citizenship? Should we say that in that case we are devalued if, living in China and having a child who is a British citizen—is of our own nationality and citizenship—this country, where we have been admitted to settle, does not recognise him as one of its own citizens? I believe in most cases the attutude would be that, of course, the children we have in this foreign country shall be British citizens: that is what we desire, that is the status of which we are proud.
A great deal of the argument in the Chamber yesterday afternoon was on behalf of those, not of the first or second, but of later generations, who were not interested in the citizenship of the countries in which they were settled, but maintained as a claim of honour that they should be able to retain by descent, through more than two generations, the citizenship of the country of origin of their parents or grandparents.
Therefore let no one say that by choosing to eschew the dual citizenship which is automatically produced on a

massive scale by the Bill in its present form, we place any stigma upon those concerned or upon the nations or the countries from which the parents come. It would be easier to sustain the opposite proposition. I have noticed that those who have argued in favour of dual nationality have not done so on the basis of white parents from European countries. They have not said what a shame it would be for a little German born in this country not also to be a little Briton from birth. Instead they have cited the New Commonwealth countries and their nationalities.
It was claimed by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) in Committee that noblesse oblige from the days of Empire requires that we should confer upon them, whether they want it or not, the citizenship of this country. I ventured to suggest to the hon. Member—who is not at present in the Chamber, but the view is not restricted to him—that a sort of prejudice lurks behind that attitude, as if the nationhood and nationalities of the citizens of those new countries were not to be compared with those of the older States, and that therefore we were obviously withholding something from them which they ought to value, if we did not automatically superimpose our citizenship upon that of their countries of origin.
On what criteria, then, ought we to decide the question? I believe that there are two. One has been canvassed already by speeches in the debate, namely, that if one can avoid creating unnecessarily and involuntarily dual allegiance—I will substitute "dual citizenship", if the word "allegiance" causes any offence—it is desirable to do so. The doctrine about God and Mammon may not hold good 100 per cent. for the holders of dual nationality; but I believe most hon. Members will agree with me in regarding it as, generally speaking, undesirable for a person—I know that the hon. Member for York dissents from this, but I speak not only as I would feel, but as I think a great many people feel—if a legitimate and legal claim can be urged upon his loyalty by two nations; and I would still say that, even if those two nations were friendly and were not nations with a tradition of hostility or located at the opposite ends of the earth.
My general proposition, then, is that dual nationality in itself—although one would be prepared to admit exceptions—is not a desirable feature of nationality law, especially when it does not arise through a voluntary act—of naturalisation, for example—but is imposed automatically at birth, rather like baptism with the hose by the celebrated Chinese general.

Mr. Jim Marshall: In his usual persuasive way, the right hon. Gentleman may be having a great influence on the way hon. Members view dual nationality. Will he say what it will mean for people who are at present citizens of the United Kingdom and who, if he had his way, would be citizens of India, Pakistan or other Commonwealth countries but not of this country? With his usual fairness, in Committee he elaborated on what the proposal could mean for the immigrant population.

Mr. Powell: A little while ago, rather unfairly, the hon. Gentleman accused another hon. Member of making a lengthy speech; so it was a little hard of him to intervene in my speech before it was drawing to its conclusion. I assure him I had no intention of overlooking serious and practical factors that too often remain unstated because of the inconvenience and even unpopularity of referring to


them. However, to answer the hon. Gentleman's immediate point, this amendment, and my amendment to it, do nothing retrospective.

Mr. Marshall: No.

Mr. Powell: I thought that a comment that fell from the hon. Gentleman carried the suggestion that one or the other might have an effect on the status of children already born. Clearly, it does not.
I say then that it is preferable for the future that a German or Pakistani who is born such under the law of those countries in this country should not automatically, under the law of this country, be made a British citizen from birth; but I will not conceal the fact that this is important in 1981 when, so far as I can recollect, it passed without debate in 1948, because of the change in the composition of our population meantime and the consequences and dangers that that change involves.
There are two views as to the likely consequences of that changed composition of the population of the metropolis, to which I alluded earlier. I take the example of the metropolis, although, of course, it is not unique in this respect. Two views can be legitimately held as to whether a London of the future—of which the population will be constituted as a result of the birth proportions that I mentioned— will or can be a peaceable, well-governed city, integrally part of this country and its metropolitan head and centre. One view is that it can and will happen—that it will be found possible for an inner London, 50 per cent. New Commonwealth ethnic, diminishing as one goes towards the boundaries of Greater London to 25 per cent. or 20 per cent., to be something with which all concerned will learn to live. The other view is that the tensions, conflicts and mutual fears—not fears on one side only, but mutual fears—that will result from the inexorable movement towards that eventual picture portend a future damaging and dangerous to all concerned.
Among those who take the latter view, there is again a divergence between those who believe that the consequence can be averted by persuading people to behave differently from the way in which, in human experience hitherto, they have tended to behave and those who believe that human nature will remain true to the experience that we have of it.
What no one can say of this latter view, namely, that conflict on a large scale is portended by the prospective future composition of the population of the metropolis, is that it is an unreasonable, irrational or improbable 'proposition. It can be said that it is a disagreeable or frightening proposition—the Prime Minister said that—but it cannot be said that it is inherently irrational or improbable. We ought, therefore, to take it into account in framing our law.
I wish we had been more far-sighted when we framed our law in 1948, and had endowed, as other nations in the Commonwealth did, our citizenship with the rights and appurtenances of citizenship, instead of trying to go on living a dream of empire by pretending that British subjecthood meant anything outside the shores of these islands.
5.15 pm
I bring that prospect to bear upon the alternatives proposed by my amendment and the clause as it stands.
If the worst comes to be realised, people will seek to avoid and diminish its impact, and one way in which they

will seek to do so is by reducing the size of the New Commonwealth ethnic population through re-emigration in various forms. That is one measure that is bound to present itself as rational and humane. If hon. Members believe that those reflections are restricted to an occasional politician here and there on the fringes, they are greatly mistaken. I was interested to read in the Wolverhampton Express and Star—by which I used occasionally to be misreported, as no doubt the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is now—an article on 15 April which started with the paragraph:
Young black people born in Britain would favour voluntary repatriation, according to a startling survey in Birmingham.

Mr. Reg Race: Because of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Powell: Whether because of me or not.
The poll was carried out amongst teenagers in the Handsworth and city centre areas this week, in the wake of the Brixton riots.
Many of those questioned
disclosed that they would like to 'go back'—even though they do not have a country to go to.
As was noted in the debate yesterday, they may in some cases be mistaken in that—they may find that they do have a country to go to, in the legal as well as the natural sense.
Handsworth Labour Party youth officer
—who will no doubt be known to one or two hon. Members present—
Mr. Michael Laity, who organised the survey, said: 'Some of these people feared that a similar situation to Brixton could develop in Handsworth, as they were tired of poor housing and job prospects and being treated as third-class citizens.
Even though they are British subjects they say they would like to live in the West Indies or Africa.
None of us would make too much of one individual survey, but what was discovered in Birmingham—and found startling by the Express and Star—was something that those concerned know well to be in the minds of hundreds and thousands of people who look with apprehension to what the future portends.
In demographic terms we know what lies ahead. In those circumstances, will whatever measures and choices have to be taken be assisted if we have imposed British citizenship on those who had the citizenship of their countries of origin—in many cases, such as that of India, thereby effectively depriving them of the citizenship of that country—it has been made clear by the Government and by the Indian High Commission that if they should exercise British citizenship conferred under this legislation it would be incompatible with the citizenship of India—will that be a more favourable background? Or will the background be more favourable if the citizenship of the country of origin is retained and recognised as the due status of those legally here as a result of decisions taken in past years?
By maintaining this pretence, by insisting on the water-hose method of conferring citizenship, we are acting contrary to the Government's claims. They say that they mean thereby to give an assurance of permanence to the New Commonwealth ethnic minority. I assert that they are doing nothing of the kind. They are maximising the anxieties of the rest of the community and doing nothing to remove the anxieties of the ethnic minority.
Once again, after 33 years, we are engaged in legislation on British nationality and once again we are engaged in a game of make-believe. The make-believe we engaged in 33 years ago has come home to men, women


and children with its dire consequences. When make-believe is indulged in by legislatures, that is always the result.
I would sooner that the Bill reached the statute book without the make-believe which is involved in conferring dual citizenship upon the large and increasing numbers of children born in this country with the citizenship—no doubt they will rejoice in it when they come to the years of discretion—of their parents' countries of origin.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to move his amendment now?

Mr. Powell: I understood that it was not possible to do so now as it was merely being considered and debated together with the amendment that stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be in order to move the amendment now.

Mr. Powell: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should prefer to take the decision later.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has illuminated an important facet of the debate. The amendment put forward by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) imposes British citizenship on all those born in the United Kingdom. In other words, it is an imposition. It is important for the House to bear in mind the fact that possession of British citizenship also confers certain positive obligations.
If a person possesses dual nationality, he owes not one obligation, but two. He owes an obligation to the United Kingdom, and an obligation to the other country. It is to state the obvious to say that the time may come when the interests of the two nations of which he is a national are no longer reconcilable. By imposing British citizenship in the way suggested by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, we are imposing an obligation on people—by definition, not of their own choice—that may become extremely distressing.
Most hon. Members will agree that the possession of rights and privileges—particularly the privilege of British citizenship—also confers obligations. Rights, privileges and obligations run together. I suggest that the converse is also true. If it is wrong in certain circumstances to impose obligations on individuals, it is at least arguable that it is wrong to give such persons the rights and privileges of British citizenship.
Let us consider the example of a child born in the United Kingdom of parents who are not British subjects and who are not settled in the United Kingdom. That child may leave and go to another country, where he becomes an adult. Let us suppose that that other country indulges in hostilities with the United Kingdom and that war is declared. Let us suppose also that the person, who lives in the country with which he is naturally associated, plays a part in the conflict. There is no doubt that in law the Government could, at the conclusion of hostilities, charge him with treason.
If the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook prevails, that child will be a British citizen

although he will have been raised abroad and may have lived all his life there. He will owe the Crown of the United Kingdom all the obligations of a British citizen. An extraordinary situation would arise. In theory, he would be guilty of treason although there would have been no real connection between him and the Crown. Is that reasonable or just? Does it make sense? The answer is manifestly "No". Why does it not make sense? The answer is that there is not the degree of affinity and allegiance that should sustain not merely a charge of treason, but the right to call oneself a citizen.
Therefore, if it would be wrong to attribute to that person the obligations of British citizenship, it is difficult to see how it can be argued that such a person should, as of right, have the rights and privileges of British citizenship. Those things run together. If it is not right to impose obligations, it is not right to confer rights and privileges.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to take up the legalistic argument advanced by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Instead, I shall comment on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Those who served on the Committee will recall that the speech that we just heard was the last speech that the right hon. Gentleman made in Committee during discussion of the availability of dual citizenship.
In essence, the right hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks, from the commencement date, to strip those born here—who enjoy the rights of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and the right of abode here—of their British citizenship and to make them foreign nationals. That is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do.

Viscount Cranborne: No.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member says "No". If he is not prepared to read what amendment (a) says, I am not prepared to listen to any intervention that he may make from a sedentary position.
5.30 pm
I have described what the amendment of the right hon. Member for Down, South seeks to do. He is very good at making comments whereby people misunderstand his position, but I understand his position to be this. Whereas at present children born in this country are United Kingdom and Colonies citizens with the right of abode in this country if their parents were nationals of, say, India, Pakistan or any other New Commonwealth country, if amendment (a) were passed, children born after commencement would automatically be nationals of the New Commonwealth country.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What the hon. Gentleman attributes to me requires modification in only one respect. He referred to the right of abode. The right of abode does not come into it because obviously the parents, who by definition are not British citizens, also by definition have right of abode, so that is not attributable to me. But it is quite right that if the amendment were carried children so born would not automatically at birth thereby become British citizens.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) now also accepts the basic position that I have stated. The right hon. Member for Down, South


seeks to create within this country a category of people who in essence and in effect would be foreign nationals. If the right hon. Gentleman's further views were adopted by any future Government, it would enable that future British Government to remove from those foreign nationals any civic rights in the United Kingdom and could eventually result in legislation which could lead to repatriation.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Cyril Smith: It not only could, but would lead to repatriation.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) says that it would lead to repatriation. I am convinced that if the right hon. Member for Down, South had his way it would indeed lead to repatriation. If the amendment were passed, it would have a grave effect upon race relations in the United Kingdom at the present time.
Contrary to the impression that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) may have, and even, with due respect, the right hon. Member for Down, South, Indian citizens in this country at present, many of whom have been here for 10, 15 or 20 years, are so afraid that their civic rights may be undermined in the future that they are falling over themselves to take British citizenship. So many are seeking British citizenship that there is a waiting list of up to two years. If they are keen to show that they have thrown in their lot with the United Kingdom and to show their affinity with the United Kingdom and, because of the threat which they envisage in the future, are prepared to show that in the only way that they can by taking British citizenship, if amendment (a) were carried—I am sure that the House will not pass it—it would further undermine race relations in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is now being very courteous. I wonder whether he would consider this point. Is it not possible that, by retaining this ambiguity about the loyalty of a significant minority of the people in this country, he is actually making it easier for some people to advocate their compulsory repatriation in future? If they had in a significant way chosen the citizenship of this country, it would be far more difficult compulsorily to repatriate them to their country of origin.

Mr. Marshall: My last word on this is that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the right hon. Member for Down, South are using a device, under the umbrella of dual citizenship, to persuade the House to pass an amendment which would enable a future Government easily to pass legislation leading to the repatriation of people who under the existing law are full citizens with full civic rights in the United Kingdom.

Viscount Cranborne: Would the hon. Gentleman therefore advocate that British subjects living in, say, South America or India should enjoy the full civil rights that citizens of those countries enjoy there?

Mr. Marshall: Personally, I would, but I am not sure to which particular British subjects the hon. Gentleman refers.
I find it very sad that in this debate, in Committee and on Second Reading, the Conservative Party—I include the right hon. Member for Down, South in this because he will remember the debates in the late 1940s when the argument about the disintegration of the British Empire was at its

zenith—a party which was once proud to be the party of Empire and to say that a large percentage of the world's population were British subjects should now be the party to bring in a new citizenship which has the following two main effects.
First, it removes any meaningful form of citizenship from a quarter of a million of a people who will be British overseas citizens from the commencement of the legislation. Secondly, it defines British citizenship in terms of birth in the United Kingdom so narrowly as to exclude children born to students, to people on holiday in the United Kingdom, to people on work permits, other visitors, overstayers or illegal immigrants. I do not wish to get involved in the numbers game, but the numbers involved in those categories are very small. The Home Office cannot quantify the figures. Yet citizenship is being defined in terms of birth in such a narrow way as to remove any possibility for the children of a large majority of that category to become British citizens.
This leads to many strange devices which the Government have had to arrange to cope with people who fall foul of the new system. Clause 1(2), for example. deals with the foundlings' charter, which provides that if any new-born infant is found in the United Kingdom after commencement it shall be deemed to have been born in the United Kingdom and of parents who were either British citizens or were legally settled here. Under the present system of citizenship by birth, irrespective of the status of the parents, a ridiculous provision of that kind would rot be needed.
To cover the children of illegal immigrants or overstayers, there is the so-called 10-year rule which the Minister, donning his Liberal cap for a short period in Committee, looked upon as some kind of generous concession to the pressure from ethnic communities in this country. It means that the child has somehow to evade capture by the many public authorities in order to be able to qualify under the 10-year rule. Even if he is able to take advantage of the 10-year rule, in order to prove that he had not been out of the country for more than the requisite period in any 12 months, school records, medical records and any other records available to the public authorities would be scrutinised. That was explained by the Minister in Committee.
It is disgraceful that we should need this kind of clause to cover up the difficulties which are being created by the Government's refusal to maintain the present position whereby every child born in the United Kingdom would from commencement be a full British citizen.
What annoys me is the way that the fear of future immigration, the immigration potential, the flood of immigrants, is always used in this context to underpin and reinforce the Government's arguments. I hesitate to use for the third time in five or six weeks in the Chamber a word that I have already used twice, but it is hypocritical to advance arguments of that sort when the Government are not able to quantify the numbers of children involved in the various categories to which I referred earlier.
It appears that the Government find it easier to get the support of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) for the Bill if it is cloaked in the language of immigration. That is one of the most despicable aspects of the Government's policy on nationality.
The Government have said time and time again that this legislation is not racially discriminatory. My view is that it is racially discriminatory in principle, and that beyond any shadow of doubt it will be racially discriminatory in practice. How will that discrimination arise? If I wish to prove that I am a United Kingdom and Colonies citizen by birth, I have only to produce my passport. If I wish to obtain a passport for the first time, the only proof that I have to send to the Passport Office is my birth certificate. I do not have to prove anything about the citizenship of my parents or the settlement status of my parents at the time of birth. That is just as well, because I would be unable to produce proof of my parents' citizenship.
My father, who is no longer alive, did not bequeath his passport to me. I presume that he was a British citizen at the time of my birth and that he was legally settled at the time of my birth. But it is not the custom and practice of working class families to pass down through the generations documents proving citizenship status or settlement status.
In future, for any of us in the community, irrespective of our ethnic origin or our colour, to prove our citizenship, we shall have to produce a birth certificate and evidence of our parents' citizenship or settlement status in this country. In future, the only proof of citizenship—as has been said by the Leader of the Liberal Party—will be a passport. In Committee I asked the Minister of State whether he would have sufficient civil servants at the various passport offices throughout the United Kingdom to cope with the flood of applications for passports—not only those in the pipeline but those which are likely to follow in consequence of the passage of the Bill. There will be pressure on all of us—but particularly on those in minority ethnic groups—to obtain a passport in order to prove citizenship.
5.45 pm
In what ways will the legislation be discriminatory in practice? My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that if the sons or daughters of Members of Parliament were in future to write to the Passport Office asking for a passport, the probability is that it would be issued without further question. I put that point in Committee when I referred to any grandchildren that I might have in the future. If the name is Marshall or Powell, the likelihood is that no further questions will be asked. But if the applicant's name is Suli Mohammed or Abdul Sattar—a mentally retarded child who was kicked out of this country by the Minister of State—the probability, not the possibility, is that further questions will be asked. Not only will that applicant be asked to produce his birth certificate; he will be asked to produce strong evidence of the citizenship of one or other of his parents at the time of birth or their settlement status at the time of birth.
Inevitably and inexorably, the legislation will be racialist in practice. For that reason, if for no other, I urge the House as a whole to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on amendment (a) to amendment No. 1 convinced me that I could not support his amendment, and his succinct

definition in the course of an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) put the matter beyond doubt.
The House always listens with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman, who contains in one personality so many disparate and different attitudes. I am sure that we all follow his logic and the way that he develops his argument from point to point, but I usually part company from him when he gets to the purple passages at the end, and suggests that doom and disaster threaten my constituency.
I believe amendment No. 1 to be the most important amendment that we are discussing today. Ten years ago the right hon. Gentleman did me the honour of suggesting that the greatest number of black babies were being born in the area that I represent in this House. We are still top of the league, as one in every three of my constituents comes from the New Commonwealth.
In spite of what was claimed 10 years ago, I am proud to represent a multi-racial intergrated area of London. I say that in particular to the hon. Member for Basildon, (Mr. Proctor). Despite the differences of culture and background, we have secured in schools, factories, and generally throughout the area an integration that is second to none in Britain.
We do not need to look into a crystal ball or to consider the hypothetical cases outlined by Conservative Members and by the right hon. Member for Down, South. We can read the book. Representatives of areas that include ethnic minorities do not say that there are no problems. There are some problems in all areas, but this disastrous Bill will make it far more difficult for us to cope with them. I support amendment No. 1, because it goes to the heart of one of the difficulties, namely, the uncertainty facing so many families. The amendment would remove some of that uncertainty.
Integration is important in schools, especially junior and primary schools. I have not followed the minutiae of the debate in the Standing Committee on the Bill and I shall be glad if the Minister of State will explain how the Bill without the amendment proposed by the Oppostion will affect families that have three or four children covered by previous legislation and have another child after the Bill becomes law. Will there be any difference in the status of those children?

Mr. Raison: On the assumption that at least one of the parents is a citizen, or is legally settled in this country, the new-born child will have citizenship in the same way as the other children.

Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I was not clear on that point. However, uncertainty will arise in the Home Office and in our constituency surgeries, because the Bill will create an enormous queue in addition to the queues of people who already come to see us on matters affecting the ethnic minorities. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister of State's personal staff, who help me by dealing with at least four or five matters a week concerning ethnic minorities. Sometimes I have to contact them at midnight on a Saturday over what are known as Heathrow cases and they always respond.
I do not know how the Minister's staff and I will manage with the additional problems concerning nationality rights that will arise when the Bill becomes law. The Government are asking for fewer civil servants


and less public expenditure, but the Bill will require more public and civil servants and greater expenditure by local authorities. It is nonsense.
The Government do not seem to have learnt from their errors. The nationality rules and regulations are in a mess and need to be cleared up, but the Government's proposals are parallel to the action of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on the reorganisation of the NHS. Integration of the NHS was necessary, but the right hon. Gentleman's Act of 1973 produced a result that was much worse than the previous situation. We now need to clear up nationality matters, but the Bill will make things much more complicated and difficult.
There has been fear among ny constituents, even though they are legally settled here, about their entitlement to local authority social services, particularly school buses, and concern about the recent announcement of the Secretary of State for Social Services on the possibility of charges for NHS services. It is interesting to note that within a short time of the right hon. Gentleman making that statement of intention to charge at St. Stephen's hospital passports were being demanded at that hospital from people who were legitimately seeking free treatment.
I do not suggest that the Bill will immediately take us into apartheid, but it will start us on that road, and my constituents and I fear that it will inevitably result in discrimination on the basis of recognisable differences in communities. The obnoxious "sus" law has already been a problem in Harlesden, where the ethnic minority group comes mainly from the Caribbean.
Family life in communities will be affected by the uncertainty. I have already raised with the Home Office one or two cases of people waiting more than two years for British nationality. There is a long queue under the present law, as I know from my weekly surgeries. That queue will be more than doubled.
My local borough council and nine other London boroughs concerned about the Bill held a meeting at Brent town hall last week. A statement issued after the meeting said:
The Bill will not only undermine the council's past efforts, but will make it imperative for more resources to be devoted to counteract the disastrous effects the Bill will have. For the Government to do this at the same time as it is pressurising councils to achieve economies is plain nonsense.
That statement could be echoed in any area where there are large ethnic minorities. The Secretary of State for the Environment told me yesterday that my area is likely to face another drastic, penal cut in its rate support grant, yet the Bill will make more demands on local authorities to deal with problems.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that he wanted to see communities that were peaceable and well governed. I assure him that my constituency is such a community. We now have third-generation immigrants in the area. The right hon. Gentleman said that Gujeratis who have come from East Africa were in a minority among those from the New Commonwealth, but in Alperton in my area they are the majority.
The people who came here originally, whether from India or the Caribbean, have already shouldered obligations. We called on many people from the Caribbean islands to do work that released people from this island to fight in the Second World War. The obligations were always accepted, and it does the House no service when

hon. Members suggest snidely that because people have a different ethnic background they do not accept the rights and responsibilities of being British citizens.
I hope that the House will support the amendment. My view remains that the Bill is a disaster. The sooner that a Labour Government repeal it and put something sensible in its place, the better will he the life of every family in the area that I represent.

6 pm

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Without wishing to question the selection of amendments, I regret that the debate has become confused through the acceptance for discussion of the amendment to the proposed amendment of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). In many ways, the issues are not inter-related. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to relate them by arguing that dual nationality arises out of the application of the jus soli with the jus sanguinis. So it does. However, it operates both ways. It would be possible not to have dual nationality if one only operated the jus soli. That is the impact for Indian members of our community who are not allowed to pass on their citizenship to their children who are born here because India frowns on dual nationality and thereby sets emphasis upon the jus soli in relation to children of Indian descent born in this country.
It is possible that, if the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were carried, the practice of India would be applied throughout the New Commonwealth to ensure that their decendants, who came from their territories who were resident and settled here and who intended to stay here, would not be citizens of that country. If that was the case, the irony of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman has put against dual nationality is that they would have nowhere else to go. The right hon. Gentleman's argument that we should repatriate them in some humane way would be stymied by his own argument.
What the right hon. Gentleman stated, whether inelegant or not, is the same tired red herring that he has dragged across the debates on race and immigration for years. No Government of this country now, in the foreseeable future, or probably ever would conclude that we should repatriate any section of our community to the country of origin, not just of themselves but of their forebears. The more that we have to consider the origin of their forebears, the less likely it becomes. The situation that the right hon. Gentleman is always prophesying for our inner cities is the kind of situation that obtained, in Watts and in Washington and other parts of the United States in the late 1960s. No one in the United States argued that the blacks in Washington should be sent back to Sierra Leone or Ghana because their forebears came from there. The reason was obvious. It would have been intolerabe so to argue, and no one would have considered it practicable.
The argument that the right hon. Member for Down, South puts for repatriation gets weaker with each year that passes. An increasing number of the black population of this country were born here and this is their country. it is probably the case already that over 50 per cent. of the black community of this county was born in this country. This is their country.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted a report from Handsworth. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of race relations, has never heard of the Rastafarian cult, which is strong among West Indian youth in Handsworth. I have no doubt that those who were


answering the inquiry were Rastafarian by belief. The Rastafarians are about as crackpot as the right hon. Gentleman in their extremity about their relationship with the country in which they were born. They take the view that the real spiritual home of Rastafarians is Ethiopia and that their God was Haile Selassie whom they also believed would never die—but he did. They take the view that this is Babylon, as, indeed, it was believed that America and the West Indies were Babylon. Their belief is that they have to get back to their country of origin.
All these arguments sound so familiar that they might have dropped from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman. They did not. They came from the descendants of Marcus Garvey. They stem from the same kind of intolerance that manifests itself when the right hon. Gentleman gets down to his gut feeling about race—the idea that a community cannot exist if it comes from various areas of the world, from various cultures and various ethnic origins. This country exists precisely on that basis. It has been stated over and over again. There is not one person in this country who is pure British. We are all mongrel, descended from generations and waves of migration over the years—and here is another entering our debate now.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of history is weak. Those who came to this country in the past arrived in small numbers. They included the Huguenots, the Poles, the Hungarians and the Jews. What has happened in the past 30 years is quite new in our history. Millions of people are involved. That situation cannot be compared with the small numbers who came previously.

Mr. Lyon: I am sorry to take the hon. Gentleman's classical history back as far as the Celts. They were invaders. The Romans were invaders as were the Anglo Saxons and the Normans. This country is a great melting pot of waves of migration. The only difference between the waves of migration of that generation or, indeed, of the Huguenots or Jews of the last century is that the present generation of migration is black. It is argued that they cannot mix with whites. That is nonsense. It must inherently be nonsense. If a man who is black is born by the side of a man who is white and they live in the same street, attend the same school, meet the same friends and go to the same place of work, the background and origin of the black man, by the time he is mature, will be the same. The pigmentation of his skin will not make the slightest difference to his approach to life, save for only one thing. The right hon. Member for Down, South, the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will have created a kind of attitude to the blackness of his skin, which says "You are perpetually different because your skin is different". That is nonsense.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that an Indian doctor, listening to a Rastafarian expressing the views that appeared in the report in the Express and Star, might wish to dissociate himself from those views. What better way exists of doing so than to say that he chooses this country and that he wants no dual nationality?

Mr. Lyon: Of course, that is so. A Glaswegian docker might be talking to a Surrey stockbroker on the train from Edinburgh to London. The only place where they would

meet is the bar because they come from different classes of carriage. They would have differences of view about a whole range of matters, including the kind of country and the kind of attitudes that we should have. There would be cultural differences of a most general kind. There would be cultural differences between people descended from different migrants. There would be cultural differences between those of Jewish origin and those who came to this country in the last century. That is not to say that all this cultural divergence cannot be encompassed peaceably within one country.
The great virtue of Britain is that its cultural diversity has given it a sense of tolerance and a breadth of vision that make up the whole nature of what we mean by being British. That will be passed on by our children, who will also learn from the new migrants. The intervention of the right hon. Member for Down, South is beside the point. The right hon. Gentleman stresses that it is dangerous for the Minister of State to have introduced this reduction in the jus soli for the purpose of the Bill. It was never suggested in any previous document that manifested itself before the White Paper last year that the jus soli would be reduced in this way. A nationality provision does not, of course, have to encompass the jus soli. The right hon. Gentleman is right. In some countries, it is not the case. I do not know that any country has only the jus soli. There are, however, many countries besides this with a mixture of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
The great virtue of the jus soli is its simplicity and assurance that the person's status is clear from the moment he is born. The person is here; therefore he is British. The person might be something else. It is argued that dual nationality in some way leads almost to schizophrenia on the part of those who hold it. But, if that were true, not only Pakistanis and West Indians would be affected. It would affect Americans and Australians.
The hon. Member for Basildon said that the White Paper stated that there were 3 million citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had dual nationality, of whom 1 million were living in this country. Two million people living outside this country are not black; they are white. They are people who are descended from British citizens who are living in America, Australia, Canada and South Africa—all over the world. They have dual nationality, but they do not come back here and say "We have dual nationality, you must take one of them away. We are suffering from the awful schizophrenia described by the right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West".
That does not happen. They express, through the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), the desire to keep dual nationality. They should not be robbed of their Venezualan or Argentinian citizenship, and they should also have their British citizenship. They have no difficulties. They do not feel that they have to fight for the present dictator in Argentina against Britain if Britain goes to war about the Falkland Islands. Such difficulties can arise, but they can be overcome in a sane world.
The only difficulty that could arise would be if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West were to prosecute them at the Old Bailey for treason, and I should have thought that the defence to that charge would be easy. The number of cases that he has prosecuted at the Old Bailey for that offence over the years must be infinitesimal.
So let us talk sense. There is no reason why we should not have dual nationality. Its great virtue is that the people who have to decide never have to make up their minds about what they are before they want to. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to say "You must tell me now whether you are British or Indian or Pakistani". It is up to them to decide as they go along. Many first generation migrants—not only blacks—never know until the end of their days whether they intend to stay in this country, die in this country, or go back to their country of origin. Many Jews from Russia thought that they might go back to Russia in due course. Many West Indians think that they may go back and spend their declining years on West Indian beaches. They put down their roots in this country, their children are born here, they go back and find that things have changed, and they then decide what they are.
I concede that the great difficulty in race relations is that people should be able to establish their own identity. One of the difficulties that we impose upon them at present is that they can find an identity only within a group. They can only be West Indian or Pakistani. They are not yet themselves as individuals. However, that will come with time. Moreover, it will come a lot quicker if we do not prod them into it and constantly undermine their status, as this provision will do.
The provision is not about the small minority of people who will be born in this country of parents who were not settled here. It is about the great bulk of people who are born in this country who are descended from someone who was an immigrant here. In every case, they will have to prove their status when they apply for passports.
6.15 pm
The more I think about this clause, the more repugnant I find it. It is repugnant in principle that people who are born in this country should not be able to say "I am British". It is repugnant that at some stage in their lives they will be denied that right because of the status of their parents, even though they wanted to remain in this country and to be British.
The administrative difficulties boggle the mind. The Minister sought to allay our anxieties about the 10-year provision, saying that it would be possible to consult school records and produce passports to prove that one had not been out of the country during the 10 years. Perhaps we overestimate the difficulties about the 10-year provision.
However, the difficulties about the status of parents is something else. No doubt the Minister would argue that this would apply in only a limited number of cases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested that all of us would have to prove our status. For most of us it would not be difficult because most of us would be able to produce our parents' birth certificate when applying for passports. Those certificates—those of our parents and our own—would be sufficient in normal circumstances to assure the passport office that we were entitled to citizenship.
What is the position when that certainty is more and more undermined by descent from someone who arrived here as a migrant, and one applies to that person the difficulties that have arisen in court judgments over the past five years? Unless the Government eradicate the monstrous principles that have been established by the

courts about fraud and deceit—when a person has not even been asked a question and has not volunteered information which, had it been volunteered, would have meant that he could not come in—the status of every migrant here may be questioned. The mere fact that the person can produce a passport from which the conditions have been removed is no safeguard for him. It is no safeguard that he has acquired citizenship. The courts have argued hat, if citizenship is acquired because status was originally achieved as a result of deceit or fraud, that citizenship can be removed.
So, years after the event, when the child applies for a passport at the age of 18 and says "My parents were settled here, and I can produce their passport from which the conditions were removed", the Home Office is entitled to say "That is not good enough. What questions were your parents asked when they came here? Did they volunteer information to the immigration officer on which, had we known about it, we might never have allowed them in?" It is no answer to say that they obtained their citizenship, because that citizenship might have been obtained by deceit.
Thus, every case that is put forward in that way is a possible minefield for the people putting it forward It will not affect the people who are most concerned, the people who came through immigration control. It will be their children, born in this country years afterwards, who will be seeking to prove that.
It is a monstrous proposal. It is so detestable that, if the Minister had thought it through, I am sure he would not have accepted it. He has been led into this perversion of what was a simple, sure and safe way of achieving nationality only because of his fear that there may be a few more immigrants in years to come who may be descended by birth from people who were not legally here. That is an absurdity, given the fact that we have had citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by jus soli since 1948, and we had British subject status for years before that and we always allowed the jus soli. No one has ever argued that a great crowd of immigrants could come to this country simply because of jus soli.
I suggest that the Minister takes this proposal away and thinks about it again before it goes to the Lords. It is a bad idea. The more I think about it, the worse it gets. The consequences for race relations could be enormous. If, when the Bill is enacted, every child who goes for a passport years after his birth is asked to establish the status of his parents just because they came into this country—more often than not they are black—it could go on for years.
The awful prophecies might be proved, not by the blacks but by the Minister of State. There is more than a ripple of fear. We face an undetonated load of dynamite that might blow up in our face in any year because of the anxiety. By then the people will have been here for many years and many of them will have been born here. Many others will be born to people born here. I can imagine the Minister of State jumping up and saying "In that case they would be able to assure the passport office of their parents' status". That is not so. The difficulty about the provision is that such children, because they are born to people here as a result of migration, will also be subject to scrutiny. Such scrutiny could apply for generations.
I hope and believe that that will not happen, even if we approve this silly provision. I hope and believe that a future Government will put the matter right. I hope that


we shall put it right after the next election. Even if the practice were to continue, I hope that eventually the fatuous fear about migrants coming here, when the country is built on migration, will disappear. I hope that a future community will be sufficiently tolerant and stable to be able to say that it is nonsense.

Viscount Cranborne: I did not intend to take part in the debate, but I was stimulated to do so by the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). When he argued that immigrants should be given the time to make up their minds whether they are Indians, Russians, English or Peruvian, he advocated a remarkable idea. In his populist way he was advocating the spread of one of the most undesirable features of international life, the café society—or what is known as international white trash.
The hon. Gentleman argues that people who settle in Britain should decide whether they like it and, if they do not, should be able to reject the obligations as well as the privileges of being a citizen. That is a negation of one of the advantages of being a citizen of any country.
We have heard a great deal about the dangers or advantages of dual nationality. Despite Britain being a melting pot—whether or not that is on balance an advantage—countries which have grown by virtue of being a melting pot have recognised the manifest dangers of allowing dual nationality in nationality law. The United States is perhaps the greatest example this century of a melting pot. It does not allow its citizens to have dual nationality. The reasons have been explained in another context by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I accept the reasons.
I welcome many aspects of immigration. When I go shopping to find food after a late night session in the House the only shops open are run by Asians. I do not know why, but they provide a useful service.

Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend recognise the magnitude of immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan over three decades?

Viscount Cranborne: I accept what my hon. Friend implies about the danger of the magnitude of immigration. Nevertheless, I should recognise the dangers less if the home population were a little less sceptical about the dangers. For instance, if there were a more obvious readiness to mingle and inter-marry among black and white in Britain the explosive dangers that are beginning to emerge and which are so often prophesised by the right hon. Member for Down, South would be less. Because of the prejudices and habits of the British people, the dangers to which my hon. Friend refers are infinitely greater.
Let us suppose that the existing white population of Britain showed such a readiness to intermingle, similar to the readiness to intermingle with the Polish, Jewish and German immigrants of the last century. The dangers then would be much less. To a certain extent I must accept what my hon. Friend implies. However, that does not deter me from my illustration. The country has benefited over the centuries from immigration. The hon. Member for York took us back to Celtic and Iberian times. We benefited demonstrably from the immigration of Jews in the last century. We also benefited from the immigration of the Huguenots as a result of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. No hon. Member would deny that.
I cannot go along with the hon. Member for York in his contention that it is desirable that Britain should countenance dual nationality for its citizens. By implication, Britain would then say that any member of the British community can give himself time to decide whether he wants to be British, West Indian or Peruvian. That is a nice and handy privilege. It is a privilege which the rich members of society in Paris, all over Europe and the West Indies enjoyed. The sad disintegration of that dubious society is one of the consequences of that privilege. Members of that society enjoyed all the splendid privileges of being able to go to London or Paris, but they did not take on their shoulders the responsibilities of being citizens of the community in which they lived. That is one of the great dangers of dual nationality.
My doubt about the wisdom of the amendment is not so much that it modifies or reintroduces the question of jus soli but more that it countenances the possibility of dual nationality. That is a strong disadvantage.
If we are to assert that being British is a privilege and desirable and if we are to welcome citizens of whatever race as part of the community, by implication they should not only enjoy the privileges but the obligations attendant upon British citizenship. The obligations are as important a part of life in Britain as the privileges. Therefore, the House has no alternative but to reject the idea of any form of dual nationality. Such a thing cannot be consistent with a harmonious future for the inhabitants of Britain. I urge the House to reject the amendment without hesitation.

Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) spoke eloquently of the problems created by those with dual nationality, but there is a greater problem for those who have no nationality at all. In a moment of brightness that illuminated an otherwise dark speech, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) correctly referred to the scourge of statelessness and the fact that the Bill would result in children being born in Britain who, because of the law, would not be British citizens or citizens of any other country.
We talk about the problems of choice, to which the hon. Member for Dorset, South referred. But a child has no choice of its place of birth, of its parentage, or the citizenship of its parents. Whether a child can prove where its parents have settled is a matter not only of documentation but of language and of intelligence.
I represent part of a city which has happily absorbed about 60,000 immigrants, mostly Asian from East Africa. That has required tolerance, understanding, kindness and courtesy on all sides. It is a credit to the people of Leicester. It has not been made any easier by the customary speeches of the right hon. Member for Down, South—one of which he made this evening—nor by the comments from Conservative Members which show that they do not understand the problems of those less fortunate than themselves. It is not a child's fault that he happens to be born in Britain of parents from overseas.
Such people are not in the position referred to in that marvellous Gilbert and Sullivan epic of the person who might have been a Russian, a Frenchman, a Prussian or an Italian but in spite of all temptation to belong to other nations he is an Englishman—not a Welshman, Mr. Speaker, but an Englishman. The people we are discussing


had no choice. They were turfed out of countries into whose soil they had sunk their roots. They received refuge in Britain.
That is not unique to them. I listened with care to the whole of this debate, including the many, and mostly kindly, allusions to the Jewish people who have come to Britain over the centuries. I wonder what all my four grandparents would have thought had they been able to listen to the debate, remembering that they emerged from Russia.
Unlike the choice offered by my hon. Friend the Member of York (Mr. Lyon), there was no question of my grandparents returning to Russia because they came to Britain to escape from pogrom and from conscription into the Czar's army. It was a similar flight to that which has evicted so many of my constituents from East Africa. But the essential for my grandparents and for new citizens of Leicester and other parts of Britain has always been that once they are British citizens they are treated no better and no worse than anyone else.
While we may argue between one side of the House and the other, and even within the same side, about policies of immigration about how many should be admitted and under what circumstances—there has never been any doubt that once people are in Britain and are British citizens, there should be no difference between them.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I think my hon. and learned Friend and I agree that Britain showed great moral courage when it accepted refugees and aliens from different parts of Europe. He referred to refugees from East Africa. Will he make it clear that those about whom we are talking in Leicester are not aliens or foreigners but citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies? Britain has a legal as well as a moral obligation towards them. It is made doubly difficult for those people when Conservatives Members point fingers at them and question their loyalty to Britain.

Mr. Janner: I was not aware that I had suggested anything to the contrary. I said that as British citizens they are entitled to live here. They are part of our country. They have the same rights, responsibilities and duties as anyone else. No distinction should be made between them and other citizens, whether or not they were born here.
Many of us will remember a remarkable Indian High Commissioner called Apa Pant. The first time that I attended a large Asian gathering in Leicester I was accompanied by him. He said to the Asian community, "You are citizens of Britain. You have duties to this country. You should take part in its political and civic life. That does not mean that you give up your Indian culture and background. You do not serve Britain better by trying to be the same as everyone else". That has always been the basis of our democracy and of our citizenship.
I know of no way in which any Government have sought to make a distinction between citizens, as is now being done in this Bill. We discussed yesterday a distinction based on the differences between the rights of those born in Britain to pass on citizenship by descent. We are now talking about rights that will differentiate between those born here, depending upon the citizenship of their parents.
The Bill is a most divisive, evil, unkind and relentless measure. It can cause only harm to good race relations at a time when many hon. Members on both sides are spending vast amounts of time trying to build up good will.

Instead of all children born here having the same rights if a child is born in Britain and—through no fault of his own—his parents are not British citizens, he must now prove that they were settled here, if he is to acquire citizenship other than through the excercise of a benevolent ministerial discretion, which is sometimes excercised and sometimes refused.
Proof of "settlement" is not easy to give in practice. The right hon. Member for Down, South spoke about the future problems of documentation. I suggest that those problems are here already. Hon. Members who deal with the anxieties and wretchedness of people who are genuine visitors, stopped at Heathrow and elsewhere without proper documents, and who do not understand the language of their interrogators, know that that reality is upon us. It is not a matter for the future.
Those who try to help people from overseas to obtain their rights appreciate that documentation problems already cause enormous difficulties—for this generation who come as visitors, for those who live here and for the next generation, who, if we closed our eyes as we listen to them talk, we would not know had origins anywhere else. They do not have the documents available to them because they come from countries where people are neither trained nor educated to prepare such documentation.
People born in this country bitterly resent being called "immigrants" because they did not immigrate; born here, they should be entitled to precisely the same rights in law as all other people born here—and so they were until the advent of this divisive clause which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is trying to put right through his amendment.
In his intervention, the Minister said that it is only on rare occasions when people want passports to go abroad that this problem of proof will arise. I have here a memorandum from the National Union of Teachers which takes a wider view. It says:
the Bill hangs a question mark over the citizenship status o f a number of pupils in schools. One practical effect of this will be that pupils applying for a passport to travel abroad with a school party or applying to be included in a collective passport might find the status of their family subject to enquiries. Parents of these pupils might mind difficulty in producing adequate proof of their status, especially as the courts have widened the definition of illegal residence in the United Kingdom with the result that some adults are declared to be illegal immigrants years after they were settled.
I would add that some children do not know who their parents were. That is again no fault of theirs. Some parents leave their children; some die; some separate. The number of broken families in indigenous homes, never mind immigrant homes, is vast. It is the children who will suffer, not the parents.
This wicked clause creates problems not for the parents who may or may not deserve what they have imposed on themselves but for the children. It creates agonies for the children who bear no responsibility whatever for it. It is the view of those who represent the teachers that their role will become much more difficult as a result of this legislation. They will have great problems in explaining to children that they cannot, for instance, go on the day trip to France and that they are not to be treated in the same way as others in their class or school because, although they were born here, they cannot show that their parents


were citizens or do not know who they were or cannot prove that they were "settled" here, whatever that may mean.
Perhaps the Minister will say something about the problems of adopted children, abandoned children, children from broken homes and those who know not their parents or whose parents do not wish to, or cannot, supply proof to them of their settlement. The Minister may say that he has a discretion. I pay tribute to him for the occasions when he has been kind enough to exercise that discretion on behalf of individual constituents. Alas, there have been other occasions when he has not done so and there is no appeal against his decision.
Clause 1 says:
A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is—(a) a British citizen,"—
then the onus of proof will rest upon him—
or
(b) settled in the United Kingdom."
Presumably, that, too, he will have to prove. How he would do it in the circumstances I have described is beyond me. The answer may be that the adoptive parents, the children's home, the foster parents or the school will have to ask the Minister to exercise his discretion. In a decent society that discretion may have to exist as an ultimate resort but it should be the main path for a person acquiring rights which he should have by the simple process of having the same rights as other people who are born in the same place.
The times for concern are when the child is in school, when others may know what it is about or when he is applying for a passport. The time for concern for all of us is when a provision in a Bill causes division when we want unity, when it causes anxiety when we want good relations and when it causes ill-feeling, especially in inflammatory times when above all we need good feeling. That hon. Members should throw up the Brixton riots at this time as a reason for the Bill is an amazing contradiction. When the community is under pressure that is a time for introducing legislation to bring us together, not legislation to split us further apart, as this does.
6.45 pm
Arguments flow back and forth as to how the Bill will affect citizens and their loyalties. Perhaps that is the right place to end. Today I had the pleasure of meeting one of the diplomats at the Indian High Commission who is especially concerned with good relations between citizens of Indian origin and the rest of the British community. There is no question in his mind or in the mind of anyone else that people who have settled here or whose parents settled here are British citizens with undivided loyalty to this country. There is no question of that loyalty being diminished in any way by their retention of their own customs, ways, religion and background or that their integration is in any way less valuable because they retained their links with the homelands whence they came—any more than it is for the millions of Americans who trace their ancestry to Denmark, Poland, Germany and other countries.
When one tears up the roots of people one does not increase their value to the country in which they are living and on whose soil they are settled. When their roots are gone they are inevitably less able to serve that country. It

is in the belief that the clause harms those roots that I oppose it and invite the Minister to consider whether in all conscience he can refuse the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The debate has been wide-ranging. We ought to remember that for many years every child born in Britain has been British and that the purpose of clause 1 is to eat away at that right by providing that in future one will have to apply tests before deciding whether a child who is born here is British.
One point about which there is no argument is that a child born here of parents one of whom is a British citizen should be British. There are arguments about other categories. The Bill provides that a child born here of parents one of whom is settled here at the time of his birth shall be British. Then we come to an argument on that as to what is meant by settlement, because settlement is determined by what is meant by ordinary residence.
Another class consists of those who are born here of parents neither of whom is British and neither of whom is settled here. Those children do not obtain British citizenship unless they live here for 10 years from the date of their birth and are not out of the country for more than 90 days in any year up to the age of 10. There is room for argument on these considerations. The Government have decided to replace a simple law to determine citizenship, namely, the law that says that if one is born in this country one is British, by a superstructure of other ways of becoming British and a bureaucracy to determine who shall be British in future.
Let us take the category of settlements. Upon application for a passport by a boy or girl of, say, 20 or 21 the Government must decide whether the parents or one of them were settled in Britain if neither was a British citizen at the time of the child's birth. That involves the child in having to prove to the Home Office his parents' circumstances 20 years before. That may be impossible for him. He may want a passport three months after the date of application but be unaware of the difficulties that will be encountered. He will find that the Home Office, in its usual fashion, will take two years to determine whether either of his parents was settled here, and he will have to consider taking out a temporary passport, always assuming that such a passport exists and that the Government would be prepared to issue it in the interim bearing in mind that it was not clear which citizenship the child enjoyed.
There is ticking away here a time bomb that is likely to explode not immediately after the Bill becomes law, but 20 years later when many people, unaware of the intricacies of the law, want passports, and encounter a whole series of problems in seeking to establish their citizenship. Of course, one may say that parents should take steps to protect the position of their children. However, we are dealing with babies and infants who have no means of protecting their position and who cannot know the law or know that they should be advising their parents to retain documents and to provide statements by their solicitors and notaries about their intentions at the time of the child's birth.
Ordinary residence depends on a number of factors. It depends on where the person is living and for how long he has lived there. It depends also on how often he has taken a business trip abroad, on future intentions, and on such matters as whether he owns a house. It is impossible


in many cases to know at any given time in respect of persons who are not British citizens whether they are settled here.
The Government have said that, none the less, they will introduce this new category of children who will be British only if they can prove settlement. If the Government could say that in recent years they had found that the old system was not working well, that thousands of people were coming here for holidays and were having children specifically in order to give them British citizenship, thus enabling them subsequently to re-enter the country without the usual immigration impediments, that might justify their action. But they have produced no statistics of the births of children of persons settled here but not British, or of persons who are neither settled here nor are British but are here temporarily.
The Government recognise the difficulty and tell us that all is not yet lost. They say that if a child stays here for 10 years he can obtain British citizenship automatically by registration upon application. The problem is that the child must not leave the country for more than 90 days. If the child is unable to make his own decisions and is taken abroad by a well meaning parent for a holiday lasting 100 days in only one year out of those 10, even if he does not leave the country in the other years he loses the right to automatic citizenship.
The parents should be studying the Bill. They should be aware that they must bring the child back not later than the eighty-ninth day. But how many parents will do that? How many will be able to make that choice? The father may have to go away on business or because his mother is dying abroad. He could not always calculate the number of days. In Committee the Minister said that if the parents took the child away 90 days before his birthday and kept him away for 90 days after, he could stay out of the country for 180 days without losing his rights. Does that mean that the father must solemnly work out that if he has to go away on business for six months he should go 90 days before the child's birthday in order to obtain the necessary time? If he miscalculates, the child will lose its automatic right to citizenship.

Mr. Jim Marshall: How could the parents that the hon. and learned Gentleman has described go to such lengths? The people who will qualify under the 10-year rule—if the child is here for seven or eight years the adults will be here illegally—would be unable to undertake the perambulations around the world in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Lyons: The answers are simple. First, the illegality may not have been discovered. There could have been entry by deception. Secondly, a person who is working here for a foreign firm may be living here regularly or for a number of years and his child may be born here. But if he has to leave the country for more than 90 days and take the child it will lose its right to citizenship. That could happen in a number of ways.
What happens if a child has complied with all the rules until the age of 8 years and the Home Office orders the parents to leave the country? The Home Office would be putting the parents in a dilemma. In effect, it would be telling the parents to take the child with them, in which case it would lose its right, or to abandon the child to whomever they could find in order that it could remain here for 10 years. Or would the Home Office permit them to stay for two years so that the child could qualify?
As the years go by I expect that the Government will find themselves in trouble with the European Court of Human Rights, because under the convention they are required to respect family unity and family rights. Since they must also not create statelessness, potential contraventions of the convention may arise.
The most remarkable aspect of the Bill is that it provides a positive encouragement for those who are unclear whether they are settled here, and for those who know that they are here for only a limited period, if they are keen on their children becoming British citizens, to abandon their children. Clause 1 makes it clear that a child born here and then abandoned—a foundling—is assumed to be British. So illegal immigrants will have to make the painful sacrifice of abandoning their children—turning them into artificial orphans—if they are to ensure that they have British citizenship.
None of these curious complications needs to arise. The Government have only to remain with the principle that has served Britain well for so many years. We have heard a lot of nonsense about how we must get rid of dual citizenship. But the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) does not achieve that. Everyone accepts that under the Bill a child born to parents, one of whom is British, is itself British. If the mother is British but the father is foreign, the child may still have dual citizenship according to clause 1.
7 pm
All this talk about dual citizenship is inappropriate to clause 1. It has been dragged in by a sidewind. Clause 1 keeps dual citizenship; it was decided in Committee that dual citizenship should remain. We are concerned that there should be no increase in the superstructure of bureaucracy to determine whether people are British. We do not want to increase the bureaucratic delays which will occur while inquiries are conducted about passport applications.
Hon. Members have asked how we can rely on the loyalty of people born of those who are living here. No evidence has been brought by the Government to justify abandonment of the rule that people born here are British citizens because they have turned out to be traitors. In future a child born here of a Uruguayan father and a British mother and taken back to Uruguay remains British, although he may never come back to Britain. That has been the position hitherto. Where is the evidence that such people are scheming against Britain or were arrested for treason in any war?
My conclusion is that the Government's purpose must be directed at eliminating the entitlement to British citizenship of a small number of people who are born here of transients. We are told that there are likely to be such people, but not how many there are. To turn the law on its head to make this big change to prevent a few people from having British citizenship is very strange.
Children born of transients often go back to the country of origin of their parents. Those who go back with their parents and apply for a passport 15 years later are often told that the birth certificate does not provide sufficient evidence. No photographs are taken of the child at the age of 6 months or 18 months. There is no concurrent series of photographs showing the development of the child from the age 3 months to 18 years. The person is unable to prove that he is the person whose name appears on the birth


certificate, and he does not get into the country. For a change of this sort there must be good reasons, and no good reasons have been advanced by the Government.
The effect of abandoning the simple principle that a person born here is British spreads uncertainty. It makes people feel that the Government are against them. It causes insecurity. All minority groups tend to feel insecure. They are worried about their reception in the host community. Anything which unnecessarily increases uncertainty and insecurity is likely to produce the very result that we do not want. It is likely to make minority groups feel alienated from the country and reduce the chance of their being integrated and becoming a part of the population.
Unless the Government have a convincing argument up their sleeve which was not advanced in Committee, they should think again about this provision. When the Bill reaches the other House all these arguments will be rehearsed, and it will have another rough passage. There is no support for the change among any of the organisations, including the Church organisations, which have been interested in the Bill. The Government stand alone in producing a change in the law for the sake of just a few people. They must be aiming at the few people who, being British citizens by birth, children of transient parents, might leave the country and come back later.
If the authorities find an illegal immigrant who has arrived in Britain in the last few years, they send the illegal immigrant back and normally any child of that illegal immigrant, who is a British citizen, will go back with the parents to the country of origin. I can only assume that the Government are motivated by a worry that in future children of transients may apply to an embassy abroad for a British passport to enable them to get back to this country. To give any substance to that argument, huge numbers of people would have to be involved. Even then, I do not know how morally right it would be.
In 20 years' time I can see Home Office officials wishing to examine passports for the preceding 20 years to make sure the child was not out of the country for more than 90 days in any one year. But the child will have been included in the parents' passport, which may not exist. Not all countries stamp passports. At the very least the burden of proof should be put on the Home Office to prove that the child has been out of the country for more than 90 days in any one year of 10 years rather than on the child. The Government should reserve the right to say that a child can be out of this country for longer. A child cannot make the decision whether to stay in the country or not; he is in the custody of his parents.
The Minister in reply is likely to say that clause 3 gives him overall discretion, but the criterion for granting citizenship to minors is nowhere set out, and people are left in the throes of uncertainty.
The Government have had a bad press. Nasty accusations have been made, but the Government have denied them. It would assist the Government's case and show that they have no bad intentions if they returned to the simple law we have enjoyed so long which provides that the child has the nationality of the country of birth and a child born in Britain is British.

Mr. Race: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the breadth of the amendment and my hon. Friends for

attacking the racist arguments of some speakers. Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches have been arguing for a white society in Britain, and there has been much sophistry in the arguments advanced against a multiracial society.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) used the phrase "voluntary re-emigration", not "repatriation". We all know that he meant repatriation of large numbers of black people. I can only assume that he wanted that, as did some Tory Members who dislike the concept of a multiracial society and dislike Britishness being defined as applying equally to black and white people. The Government argue that, with the insertion of the no-racialism subsection, they are not introducing racialist legislation. They may take that view in general and they may believe it, but it is not believable in the eyes of the ethnic minority communities. It is not believable when we consider what is happening to those communities.
The impression given by the Bill and by the speeches of some right hon. and hon. Members is that it is difficult for black people to be British in every conceivable sense. Members of the ethnic minority communities are especially badly affected by unemployment, bad housing conditions, prejudice and discrimination. They are affected especially by the operation of the immigration rules, which are continually stated by Home Office Ministers to be non-racialist.
It is my experience that it is difficult to understand how the rules can be other than racialist when those who attend the surgeries of their local Member of Parliament are overwhelmingly black people-people from the Mediterranean, from the Asian sub-continent, from the West Indies and from Africa. During my first two years as a Member of Parliament I have had to refer to the Home Office only one case involving a white person. As the Minister of State will know, I refer many cases to him for his consideration and for him to use his discretion.
The Bill is building on the edifice and the legacy of the policies to which I have referred. It is thoroughly racialist. The amendment seeks to remove one of the important planks of the Bill—namely, that a child cannot be British automatically be virtue of the birth of that child in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Proctor: May I revert to the hon. Gentleman's comments about repatriation? Is it his view that those from the new Commonwealth or Pakistan who wish to return to their home country should not be assisted to do so in some way by the Government?

Mr. Race: People are free to return to any country they like if that is their wish. I would not stand in their way if that were their real intention. However, I object strongly to the encouragement of the belief that they should return and that they should be forced to go back by the comments of those who are Members of this place. What we are doing—what Conservative Members are doing—is creating a climate in which many in the ethnic communities believe that that is the Government's real intention and the intention of all politicians in the Conservative Party. I object to the creation and the encouragement of an atmosphere in which those in the ethnic minority communities believe that the only way in which they can maintain a decent life without being harassed and suffering from prejudice is to return to a country that they might not have seen for 20 or 30 years, if at all.
We are advancing arguments for a multiracial society. It is argued that we have a multiracial society in Britain. We say that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant when considering whether that person is a good citizen. We want no impediment and no obstacle to be placed in the way of those who may have been born here in acquiring citizenship merely because their parents may not have been born in the United Kingdom.
7.15 pm
There will be serious problems about documentation and people's entitlement to Health Service provision and the provision of housing. It is open to a local authority—some authorities do this—to say that an individual cannot go on the housing waiting list if his immigration and nationality status is unclear, or if he is not permanently settled in the United Kingdom. The Bill will encourage local authorities that take that view to carry forward their policy and to impose it even more strictly. We shall see it being applied by housing action centres and housing authorities throughout the country. Those who sit behind the desks will ask applicants for passports, documents from the Home Office, proof of identity, proof of nationality and proof of where they were born. That policy will spread. It will spread into areas where those requirements are not really justified.
The Bill and other changes that the Government are making will have an affect on the NHS. There will be a great temptation for ward clerks, who may in some instances be prejudiced against black people or people from ethnic minority communities, to say to someone who has a black face "We want to see your passport or other documentation that will prove to us that you are entitled to National Health Service treatment as of right, and that you are not a visitor to this country who has to pay under the regulations introduced by the Government." That approach, that broader discrimination and difference of treatment between black people and white people, will be a further important source of friction between the two communities. Any hon. Member who doubts that is taking a crazy view.
The arguments that we have been advancing on birth—the country of birth leading to a right and entitlement to nationality—are especially important. However, one problem that arises in my constituency and in the part of the borough that I represent has exercised me somewhat since the Bill was published. I have not yet seen any clear explanation of how the Home Office will implement the Bill for Cypriot refugees.
I ask the Minister of State to give a clear indication of the way in which children born to Cypriot refugees who came here after 1973 at the discretion of the Home Office, who are not permanently settled and who were born after the commencement of the Bill's provisions, will be treated when it comes to determining nationality and applications for naturalisation. Will it be necessary for those persons to prove ordinary residence? Will the child of a Cypriot refugee be regarded as ordinarily resident in this country? How will the Home Office view that matter? That is an issue that we shall need to clear up.
I have had considerable representations from Cypriot groups in my constituency and in the borough of Haringey on that issue. That is because Haringey, Islington and other parts of North London have great concentrations of Cypriot refugees and of other Cypriots who have been here for considerably longer.
In conclusion—I do not want to detain the House for long—the general provisions of the clause will cause immense confusion and immense harm to large numbers of people. The operation of the 10-year rule will he particularly damaging to children from ethnic minority communities. In some of those communities, it is the practice to send back the children to the Indian subcontinent for the duration of the summer holidays from school. What will happen to them? Those children will lose out on the 90-day rule. They will not be able to qualify for application for British citizenship at the discretion of the Home Secretary because they have been sent back for a holiday in the Indian sub-continent, Cyprus or anywhere else during the period that they have been in the United Kingdom.
That rule will cause immense difficulties. Many children will not have a clear nationality for many years in the future. People of 20, 25 or perhaps even 30 years of age will not have had a clear 10-year period of residence in this country outside the 90-day rule on which to fall back when making an application.
Under the Bill and this clause, the Conservative Government and the Minister of State are encouraging those people in our society who believe that Britain should not be a multiracial society, that somehow black people are inferior and that they are not capable of being British in every sense of the word. That encouragement to racialism and discrimination is a disgrace to the Government.
The Government should make a start proving their good intentions by making a reality of the promise which they made in another section of the Bill, that nothing in the Bill would mean discrimination against black people or people from ethnic minority communities. That promise will be totally hollow if they do not move on clause 1 and accept the amendment which stands in my right hon. Friend's name and if they do not make some other fundamental and important changes to the way in which the Bill is drafted.
I believe that the Bill will set back community relations for a long time. I hope that the House will make a start on rectifying the situation by accepting amendment No. 1.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Clause 1 offends against a basic principle enshrined in our law, that the sins of the fathers should not be visited on the children. If the children of a person who comes here illegally are born in Britain and are British subjects, they cannot compulsorily be returned if the father and the mother are returned. It does not always work like that. Often the parents feel that they must take the children back with them.
The Minister will be aware of the case, which I mentioned yesterday, of the person who had been settled for 21 years in this country. He was a bus driver and was buying his own house. He suddenly discovered that, originally, he had come here illegally. He brought over a wife. The wife had committed no crime, but because, technically, he was not entitled to bring her in in the first place, she had to go back too. There were two young children. The parents had to make a heart-rending decision—the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) spoke of it earlier—whether to leave the children behind or to take them with them. In the end, they took the young children with them. Within 10 days of


returning to Pakistan the younger of the two children died of cholera. As I said yesterday, that case will always be a blot on the Home Office's administration.
As I understand the new regulations in clause 1, there will not be an option in such a case because, if the father of the two children, although they were born in Britain and never knew anything else but this country—they were born here, lived here and may have started school—suddenly discovered that he had entered this country illegally, they would not be British and under the immigration rules could be returned, with no choice. I hope that the Minister will tell me if that is wrong. As I understand the Bill, those children who were born in this country with a parent who came here illegally will have the sins of the father visited upon them and will not be British subjects, as they are now. I believe that that is what the Bill means. If it does not, perhaps the Minister will tell me when he winds up.
I do not believe that this clause is designed for the transient white visitor who comes here for a short period, and whose children are born here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) said, it is aimed at getting rid of some of the immigrant community—for example, those whose parents came here illegally. I cannot see any other reason for making such a fundamental change, except to reflect the Government's philosophy on immigration and race.
For years it has been a fundamental right that if one is born in this country, one is a British citizen. The Bill is tied in with immigration and the right to stay here. If the Government were not wishing to change the immigration rules and constantly stiffening them, the Bill would not be before us today. It is linked with the immigration rules. The Bill, and the clause in particular, has caused a great deal of uncertainty in much of the immigrant community. Those people are afraid. They come to us in our advice centres and ask whether the Bill applies to them. It is difficult to give an answer, unless one has been a member of the Committee on the Bill, dealing with it every day.

Miss Jo Richardson: Even then it is difficult.

Mr. Mitchell: It is difficult, as the matter is so complex. The fact that one cannot give those people an instant answer makes them even more afraid and worried.
The Bill—this clause in particular—has increased uncertainty in the immigrant community and has harmed race relations. People who are afraid and worried will react in particular ways. Like many other Members of Parliament, for many years I have worked towards improving and maintaining good race relations. We have all done so by every method we can use. Now we find that the Bill has set back what many people have been trying to do for many years. A cloud of suspicion and fear has been created in the community. This clause can do nothing but harm. I hope that the Minister will withdraw it.

Miss Richardson: I wish simply to underline the difficulties that the Bill has caused and will cause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) said, in our surgeries, when we receive deputations and at meetings of minority groups we see written all over everyone's faces the fear and uncertainty that the Bill is causing. Those of us on the Committee,

which started only in early February, although it feels like years ago, have become more and more aware of the difficulties that the Bill creates.
We asked for an undertaking from the Minister that, in whatever form the Bill finally emerges from the House of Lords, individuals will be made adequately aware of what their status is and will be, but he has not yet given that undertaking. On the last occasion on which he was asked, he repeated that it would be a costly operation and that the Government could not undertake it. It is the height of cynicism and lunacy to introduce such a complex Bill, which is causing so much uncertainty and fear among those who have come to live here and many who are born here and not to describe in a simple way that everyone can understand what their position will be. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.
I wish to deal with a narrow point to which I referred in Committee. Although it was not ideal, we were pleased that the Government made a concession by writing into the Bill that children who have been here for 10 years and have only been out of the country for a maximum of 90 days in each of those 10 years can claim British citizenship. We moved amendments to shorten the period. We discussed verification in the case of children applying to register under the provisions for those resident for the first 10 years of their lives. The Minister stated:
the NHS medical card can be clearly of considerable significance. I hesitate to attach absolute values to some of these documents, but under normal circumstances an NHS card will be a valuable piece of information."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 26 February 1981; c. 225.]
He went on to mention child benefit and school records.
I am particularly concerned about school records. Has the Home Office asked the view of the National Union of Teachers about the school records being examined for that purpose. The Government may not like its view, but before they use school records—it may be difficult, as children move from one part of the country to another or to different areas within a borough—it would be wise to consult the teachers' unions.
In the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, part of which I represent, in about three weeks we recently had the misfortune to have three schools burnt down. I do not know whether the records were kept on the premises or in other civic buildings in the borough, but what happens if buildings are destroyed and records are not available? The whole question of verification is dicey, and the Government should look for a better method or accept the word of the individuals concerned, without snooping into their records.
It has been said that clause 1, which is the nub of the Bill, merely increases racial tension. I do not for one moment suggest that that was the Government's intention, although some hon. Members on the Government Benches are more reactionary than the Minister of State. If he has not seen the evidence for himself, either from his contact with constituents or in the Home Office, I beg him to realise that the Bill is causing tension. No one doubts the need to reconsider our nationality law, but to do it in this way, to remove an important and undeniable right that has been in our law since 1948 and to introduce this note at this stage does a disservice to race relations.
Whether hon. Members on the Government Benches like it or not, we were a multi-racial society long before people from the New Commonwealth countries came here. Every one of us has strains from other races, and they


enrich our society. The problem in the minds of certain hon. Gentlemen concerns the colour of a person's skin, which is a shameful element to introduce into British society.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: A number of hon. Members have attacked the idea of dual nationality, although it has been with us for a good many years. Although I was not in the Chamber all the time, I listened hard to what has been said, and I did not hear a single instance quoted of where the dual nationality permitted to people living here had had a notable adverse effect on our lives. If a departure from existing practice is argued for, we should have evidence to show that the present practice is not working satisfactorily. Had there been any such evidence, it might have been easy to find it. For example, one would have expected comparisons between people from Pakistan, who have dual nationality, and people from India, who do not. I am convinced that we should continue to permit people to have dual nationality.
A number of irresponsible views were put forward. Sometimes only thinly disguised, the case was put for repatriating people who are not white. Those who advanced that argument talked about voluntary repatriation, but there is only a thin line between that and compulsory repatriation. The concept of voluntary repatriation is reprehensible because the more that it is talked about as the possible basis for policy, the more will people feel threatened and coerced and that they are not wanted here. That is the danger that we must avoid. Some people already feel that the host community does not want them here. Those who feel that they are not wanted here cite as evidence some of our legislation, such as the immigration rules, and point to this Bill, saying that it is another example of a Government measure that suggests that they are not completely accepted or wanted here.
I hasten to repeat that the Government have said—and I hope that they will contine to say—that they fully accept the right to dual nationality. However, some of the other features of the Bill make people feel that they are not living here as equal members of society. On more than one occasion—including in Committee—the Minister said that the Bill had been unjustly criticised. That is not true. Most of the criticisms are fair. For many of us, the Bill's worst feature is its attempt to deny British citizenship to all those born here.
If the Minister wished to do something positive to improve race relations and to increase the sense of security felt by blacks or Asians living in Britain, he would accept amendment No. 1 and give all children born here the right to British citizenship. The fears of the black and Asian communities are real. The Minister may deny that such fears exist, but they do. All Opposition Members have evidence of the concern and anxiety experienced by such people. They anxiously and desperately want to be accepted by the host community. They see the Bill as a further impediment to their acceptance. The Minister has not given enough assurances to the contrary and I hope that he will give some assurances today.
Mention has already been made of the onus of proof that will fall on people to establish that their children are entitled to British citizenship. Recently there have been a number of unfortunate episodes. In some hospitals people have been asked to produce passports. Notorious raids were made on employers' premises to see whether their employees were illegal immigrants. In such cases, the

burden of proof has fallen on such people to show that they are entitled to live here, that they are settled here, have permission to stay, and so on. It is hard to satisfy the burden of proof unless one has some form of documentation, such as a passport.
As a result of the Government's proposals, the trend will become worse. We are often approached by members of the Asian community who ask what they should do. They want to know whether they should carry their passports about with them. They want to know whether it will become even more important to do so if the Bill is enacted. The Minister may shake his head. Indeed, I thought that he would. However, what does one say to those who feel insecure, who are liable to be stopped and questioned and who need to produce evidence of their entitlement to live here? Surely this proposal will only make things worse.
Another difficulty about the burden of proof has already been mentioned. I refer to the "concession" that the Minister put forward about those children who had been here for 10 years and to the proviso concerning the number of days that they should not be away for in any one year if they wish to qualify for citizenship after the 10-year period. It will be difficult for people to prove whether they have been away for a certain number of days. In Committee there was argument about whether those who were settled here at the time of the birth of their children might, as a result of subsequent court action, be defined as unsettled. That is another area of uncertainty
My next point is not of one enormous principle but of practicality. I refer to the extra burden that will be thrown on the Home Office. We already receive letter; every week from the Home Office in response to queries about naturalisation and about delays in granting it. The Minister has heard such things many times before. Would he care to estimate the amount of extra work that will be thrown on the Home Office as a result of the new procedures and difficulties? The Home Office will need an enormous increase in staff if it is to cope with the extra difficulty. Without extra staff in the Home Office we shall be faced with years of uncertainty while constituents wait for their applications to be dealt with. Either in terms of the principle or in terms of sheer practicality, will the Minister concede the merits of the case put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and accept amendment No. 1?

Mr. Raison: We have had a long debate. We always expected that on Report this would prove to be one of the major debates. In a sense, we have had two debates which have, perhaps, jostled a little uneasily together. There has been a major and a minor theme. It might not be prudent to say which was the major and which was the minor theme, but in terms of time spent there can be no doubt that the major theme involved the question of citizenship by birth—the jus soli. The question of dual nationality was also raised.
It will prove most convenient to speak first about the jus soli and amendment No. 1. I shall then turn to the subject of dual nationality, which was raised both by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and in the amendment to which several of my hon. Friends addressed their remarks. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, his amendment is clearly designed to remove from the Bill the


Government's proposal that in future a child born in this country should be a British citizen only if one of his parents is a British citizen or is settled. We believe that our proposal, embodied in clause 1(1), is eminently reasonable and should stand.
As several hon. Members know, the matter was rightly debated at great length by Standing Committee F, which rejected amendments that would have had a similar effect to the one sought by the present amendment. During those debates I pointed out that it was only recently that the Opposition had put forward the arguments of high principle against the acquisition of citizenship through the status of a parent rather than through the place of one's birth.
With respect, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was not accurate about one matter. The Green Paper of the last Labour Government did not argue in that way. It is true that it ultimately favoured retention of the present all-inclusive method of conferring our citizenship on everyone born here. However, it is not true that a matter of principle was involved. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "principle". The Green Paper admitted that there were drawbacks to the present method. Its conclusion that, nevertheless, the present method should be retained was based more on its convenience than on any argument of high principle. The following words were used:
On the whole the Government consider that the simplicity and inclusiveness of the jus soli method outweighs its drawbacks.
That is far from being a resounding statement. This Government attach greater weight to the drawbacks mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Green Paper.

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps I should not rise to intervene every time that the Minister makes semantic errors. However, if he considers the matter for a minute he will understand that inclusiveness is a principle. It is that principle on which the Green Paper specifically stood and it is that principle on which we stand today.

Mr. Raison: Any hon. Member who reads that part of the Green Paper will accept that the flavour is very different from any discussion in terms of principle. That section of the Green Paper is rather pragmatic.
The Government attach greater weight to the drawbacks mentioned in paragraph 34. Let me remind the House what those were. The Green Paper said that our present method of conferring citizenship on everybody born here
confers citizenship indiscriminately on all who happen to be born here … we confer citizenship on children who, though born here, may be brought up and live their lives abroad, and on children whose parents, though entirely unconnected with the United Kingdom, have arranged for the child to be born here to acquire citizenship for its possible usefulness later".
The present Government, like the previous Government, see no strong reason in principle why our citizenship should be conferred on children born here in those circumstances. Indeed, many of the arguments of principle would appear to lie entirely on the opposite side. The White Paper pointed out that, in addition to the arguments advanced by the Green Paper, one had to take account of the fact that the children concerned were able to pass on their citizenship to their children born overseas. As the White Paper said
The additional British citizens so created … would have little or no real connection with the United Kingdom.
That is very important because, as I think the House knows by now, what we are looking for in the creation of our new

scheme of British citizenship is real connection. We are looking for citizens who have a real connection with the United Kingdom.
The question must be faced as to what rational reason there is for the children of people who are here purely temporarily or, for that matter, illegally, expecting to have the right to acquire British citizenship. The more one thinks about that fundamental point—I shall come to the practical arguments in a moment—the more doubtful it becomes as to what is the rationale in terms of principle for saying that everybody born here should be a British citizen, even if the person is merely born here, goes away after a few weeks and spends the next years or decades of life in some remote part of the world. That is fundamentally what we are talking about in terms of our switch from the old, historic principle to one which seems to us to be right for the present day and present circumstances.
There are also, of course—and I do not seek to disguise this—important implications for the effectiveness of our immigration control. The White Paper referred to people who were here temporarily or had remained here in breach of conditions of entry or who had entered illegally. It concluded that in many such circumstances there seemed no real justification for continuing to allow the child to have our citizenship unless—and this is quite important—one of the parents was subsequently accepted for settlement here. That is not the overriding factor, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to suggest, but it is a significant factor.
I also referred in Committee, to what the Government regard as an important point, namely, that two people who are here illegally, for whatever reason, should not acquire a right to remain simply by having a child in this country. Home Office Ministers of successive Administrations have always made it clear that the birth here of patrial children is not a bar to the removal of the parents. But there is the difficulty that, when the parents are deported in such cases, they cannot be compelled to take their children with them. Of course, the parents nearly always take their children with them voluntarily, but there is an anomaly here. Also, as I told the Standing Committee, we should take into account the various international bodies whose jurisdiction we have accepted. We cannot rule out the possibility that one of them might find that it was wrong to remove the parents of a child who had the right of abode here.
As members of the Standing Committee know, it is not possible to give any precise estimate of the numbers who may be affected. I gave the Standing Committee some figures which could be indicative, although no more than that. As I said then, in 1979, between 59,000 and 64,000 children were born in England and Wales to parents both of whom were born outside the United Kingdom. It is a reasonable assumption that in some of those cases neither parent was settled here. Even if one assumed that 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the parents were our citizens or were settled, that would still leave between 3,000 and 6,500 children born here each year to parents who were neither citizens nor settled.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the arguments that he has adduced prove beyond any doubt that the measure he has put before the House is an immigration measure and not a nationality measure, in that he gives


greater weight to the immigration problems which might result for the authorities from problems about the parents than to the problems of the child, who might be rendered stateless by his proposition?

Mr. Raison: They prove absolutely nothing of the sort. I told the House a few minutes ago what were the major reasons for our decision. I said perfectly frankly that there were immigration implications. But because there are immigration implications in one particular ingredient of the Bill that does not mean that the entire Bill is to be seen as an immigration measure rather than a nationality measure.
The use of the term "settled" in this context has been the subject of criticism. This has been on the grounds of the claimed practical difficulties for the child in establishing his parents' settled status. This was raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). In my view, however, the difficulties have been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, the very use of the settled criteria in this context indicates the Government's non-racial approach. Settled parents who are not citizens can have children here who would become citizens. As the House knows, this is more generous than is usual with systems which confer citizenship on the basis of the status of the parent. Most countries with jus sanguinis systems require the parent to be a citizen before he can transmit citizenship to the child.
It is said, however, that the term "settled" includes ordinary residence, and this is not a clear concept. For someone who remains out of the country for long periods, this can sometimes be so, although usually a sensible judgment can be arrived at when the facts are examined. Otherwise, it will normally be quite clear whether a person is settled here or not. Generally speaking, anyone who is living here free of conditions on his stay will be regarded as settled. Of course the term "settled" excludes illegal entrants and overstayers and indeed anyone who is not free of restrictions on his stay here. But, in the Government's opinion, it is right that people in these categories should be excluded.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Generally, therefore, a person would be regarded as being settled if the conditions had been removed. Will the Minister make that an absolute bar to investigations beyond the removal of conditions? If he did that, it would certainly remove a great deal of my difficulty. If he will say that the Home Office will not go behind the removal of conditions in order later to assert that the conditions were removed as a result of deception or fraud, I should certainly feel a good deal more relieved.

Mr. Raison: I cannot answer "Yes" off the cuff. We must look at this problem in terms of the law as it stands and as it has been laid down by the High Court, and it is clear that a person is no longer settled if he achieves entry by deception. That is what the law says. I believe that we shall always look very carefully at the particular circumstances of cases that come before us. I know that this is a very sensitive area, but if the hon. Gentleman is asking me to give a categoric "Yes" in response to what he has said, I am afraid that I am not in a position to do so.

Mr. Lyon: It is not such a preposterous suggestion as the Minister makes it sound, because until this class of case arose the Home Office regarded the fact of removal

conditions as being an absolute barrier and did not question it thereafter. It is only since these conditions have arisen that cases are now being questioned, long after the conditions have been removed and over a far wider area than alleged fraud.

Mr. Raison: What I have said is that the law has been laid down by the High Court, and it is not for me to stand at the Dispatch Box at this moment and say that we can disregard the law as laid down by the High Court.
8 pm
With regard to settled status, I should like to say something in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) about Cypriot refugees. The people to whom the hon. Member referred are not regarded as refugees for the purposes of the United Nations convention. Their admission has always been concessionary and on a temporary basis. The children born after commencement would not, therefore, be British citizens unless the one parent had been accepted for settlement by the time of the children's birth.
I cannot accept the arguments that have been put forward—I say this in particular to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).—about the effect of court judgments on illegal entrants. It may be that a parent who might have hoped that he was accepted as settled at the time of his child's birth is later discovered to have been here illegally all the time. What has happened in such cases is that someone who entered illegally is ajudged to have done so by the courts. The Government cannot condone illegal entry. I cannot see why the existence of recent court judgments on the question should lead us to interfere with the long accepted definition of "settled". But I say again to the hon. Gentleman that we have shown in all these cases of deception that we look at the matter very carefuly and with a good deal of sympathy. But I cannot go beyond what I have just said in regard to the law.

Mr. Lyon: This is an absolutely vital part of the whole argument. I accept, of course, that in the cases where the Home Office considers the question, it does so with a considerable degree of care and with such sensitivity as it can command. The real issue is that, as a result of the court judgments, the police and immigration officers are questioning the status of a great many people against whom there is no suggestion of illegality. It is simply that they now have to scrutinise a much wider area of case.

Mr. Raison: In the whole process of passing the Bill through the House we are talking about what the law of the land is to say and what it does say. The Bill uses the word "settled". It is there in clause 1. I cannot get up in this House and reinterpret the word "settled". It is not for me to do so. The word "settled" is there and it is an important prop of our whole position. It would be absurd for me to do what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do.
There will, of course, come a time when a child born to a settled parent will need to establish that he is a British citizen. This is one of the features that has played a substantial part in our debate. It will be done as the occasion arises—when, for example, he wants a passport. I repeat that there is no question of determination of citizenship becoming part of the birth certification process. Parents of children born here after commencement might well, of course, welcome a leaflet setting out the new citizenship provisions, and we shall be looking at


that. I assure the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) that I am concerned in general that after the Bill has received Royal Assent its contents should be widely known and understood.
The Government see no particular reason why difficulty should normally arise when the child needs to assert his claim to citizenship. It was a gross exaggeration for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to say that proof will invariably be demanded of black children. That was not a fair thing to say.
In very many cases the parents will set out the claim on the child's behalf while he is still a minor, and there seems to be no reason why they should not be able to produce evidence of their settled status. I agree that there must be some differences in the procedure for passport applications. This is because a simple birth certificate showing birth in the United Kingdom will in future be insufficient by itself as proof of citizenship. But we do not see why the application form could not be simply designed so that the parent could give details of his own claims to British citizenship or of his settled status in the United Kingdom.
I should like to say a word or two more about passports and the process of application. I said in my Second Reading speech that we shall be relying basically on the declarations of applicants for passports and their parents and on those who act as sponsors. It is at present an essential feature of a passport application—I am referring to applications made in the United Kingdom—that reliance is placed on the sponsor or counter signatory to establish the identity of an applicant. We intend to use that method for this category, too. But because a birth certificate showing birth in the United Kingdom after commencement will not itself be proof, as it is now, of nationality status, the application form would be designed so that the parent could give details of his own claim to British citizenship or of his being settled in the United Kingdom. We believe that such proof as is needed would be readily available.
Passport applications would normally be made during the child's minority by a parent. Where the parents have not taken British citizenship but want their children to have it, experience suggests that they apply for a passport when the child is young. In these cases we see no reason why the parents should have difficulty in establishing their settled status satisfactorily for this purpose. It is in the interests of everybody that status should be established at an early stage.
Where one of the parents is a citizen, evidence of that will often be forthcoming naturally. For example, the application may be for the addition of the child's name to a parent's United Kingdom passport, or the application may be made when the parent is applying for or renewing a passport. Passport applications from persons born after commencement would form only a very small part of the total passport applications for some years to come. We have time to develop a practice in the light of experience without imposing onerous evidential requirements or accepting heavy additional work loads.

Mr. Jim Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman knows, from the Opposition Benches we are continually referring to the discriminatory nature of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the normal practice of getting

a passport during the minority of the child. That may be his experience but it is not my experience with the indigenous population. It is within the experience of the immigrant community of this country that it is the only way in which people can prove their status in this country at the moment. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the tradition that has grown up in that community, because of fears of immigration rules and regulations, will continue when the Bill becomes law. How does the hon. Gentleman square that with his view that the legislation will not be discriminatory in practice?

Mr. Raison: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about this matter. The fears that are being generated are not justified. I am not denying that there are fears and I have never sought to do so. But as people come to see how the Bill works in practice they will realise what fantasies most of these fears have been.
The right hon. Member for Roxborough, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) talked about moving to some kind of pass law society, on the basis of what is contained in the Bill. That is absolute rubbish. There is no justification whatever for the argument that the Bill will have that kind of effect. It is utterly contrary to the intentions of the Government and of myself.
We have also moved the important amendment to clause 1 that was accepted by the Standing Committee and is now incorporated as subsection (4). It provides that a child born here who does not become a British citizen through his parents' British citizenship or settled status shall have an entitlement to registration 10 years later if he has resided here continuously since birth. Short periods of absence would be permitted. That entitlement could be claimed by anyone failing to establish his parents' status and should be more than sufficient to deal with the exceptional case where there might be long term difficulties.
The hon. Member for Ladywood talked about statelessness arising out of the Bill. But I remind the House that there is not merely the provision that I have just described. We fully meet the requirements under the international conventions, and, specifically in schedule 2, we have our provisions for meeting statelessness.
Questions have also been raised about the immigration rules that would apply to children born here who do not obtain citizenship. As I told the Committee, at this stage I can give only a broad indication of what might be done, but obviously provision would have to be made for the child who applies to remain here or to enter after absence. The basic approach would probably be to bring his conditions of stay into line with those of his parents or of his mother if she were on different conditions of stay from his father.
I hope that I have reassured the House that many of the points raised by Labour Members have no substance in fact. They have looked for every possible complication—sometimes they have found points that are worthy of note; I do not deny the value of our Committee discussions or the importance of getting the matter right—but on the fundamental question whether we are right to bring the new provision into our nationality law there can be no doubt that what we are doing makes sense and will be seen to make sense by the great majority of the people of this country.
I turn to the theme outlined by the right hon. Member for Down, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) in speaking to the amendments in the names of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) and others. Amendment (a) provides that all children born in this country will acquire British citizenship unless they acquire the nationality of another State at birth, presumably by descent by one of their parents.
There are several serious objections to that proposal. It would be difficult to operate, would cause considerable hardship and dislocation and would run counter to our declared policy on dual nationality. I shall deal with those objections.
First, there would be no records of which children born here held another citizenship. A person born here and claiming British citizenship when, say, applying for a passport could be asked whether he held another citizenship, but there would be no means of checking on those who said that they did not. Searching inquiries would be necessary if the bar on dual nationality were to be enforced effectively.
Secondly, the amendment would apply to those who had involuntarily acquired another citizenship through one of their parents. That could be particularly harsh. It would apply to those who, though they had a claim to another citizenship, had never sought to avail themselves of it, because they had no real links with another country and had spent all their lives here.
It would presumably also apply to those whose parents held different nationalities, even if one were a British citizen. Moreover, there would be no choice in the matter and no opportunity to renounce the other citizenship. That would be unacceptable and impossible to justify and defend. Even countries that severely restrict dual nationality normally impose restrictions only on adults who are given an opportunity to renounce any other nationality that they may have acquired during their minority.
As we made clear in the White Paper, we do not believe that it would be right to have any general restriction on the holding of other citizenships in addition to British citizenship. To do so would make it more difficult for people who have come here from overseas to settle down in this country and make their contribution to the life of the community. It is natural that such people should wish, at least initially, to retain their links with their country of birth, and we do not think that they should be compelled to choose between those links and those that they are developing with this country.
We see the links as normally complementary rather than conflicting, and we think that a generous policy on dual nationality, far from hindering integration as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Down, South, will assist it. I must make it clear, as I did in Committee, that the Government are fearful that the object of the right hon. Gentleman is in some way to encourage black repatriation or, as he called it in his speech, re-emigration. I made my view clear in Committee. It is not the aim of the Government to do what the right hon. Gentleman wants. I cannot believe that it is right in a society such as ours to make that our aim. The purpose of the Bill is not to divide communities.

Mr. Budgen: If any future Government wished to repatriate a section of the former immigrant community it

would surely be infinitely more difficult to repatriate those who had voluntarily chosen to take British citizenship and to renounce the citizenship of their country of origin.

Mr. Raison: That is not a path which I wish to go down. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's point.
The purpose of the Bill is not to divide communities. Most of those born to people in the ethnic minorities in this country who are, for the most part, settled here, even when they have not acquired our citizenship, will be British citizens. That is right. To do anything to disturb that will only exacerbate unnecessarily existing racial tensions. There are no grounds for the belief of the right hon. Member for Down, South that to omit those settled here from the provisions allowing citizenship would be a means of removing conflict. Indeed, I believe the reverse to be true
I accept that many countries have chosen a different route, but our choice is based on different circumstances. It is based on our history and the fact that we had not only an influx of people after the war, but an influx that followed the transformation of the old Commonwealth. The history of our Commonwealth and our Empire is that of many countries linked together by all sorts of ties. We do not wish to compel people to have to choose between their association with Britain and with another country as the price of acquiring British citizenship.
It may interest the House to know that not only the ethnic minorities have asked us to keep dual citizenship. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have expressed their concern that British citizens in those countries should not be compelled to choose between their ties. There are dual loyalties in the network of relationships that has grown up and it would be a mistake to make it impossible, in formal terms, that they should exist.
I advise the House to reject the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and I must also advise hon. Members to reject the amendments that seek to prohibit dual nationality.

Mr. John Tilley: The House will have noted the contrast between the approaches of the Minister of State and the Home Secretary over the two days of our debates. The Home Secretary spent all yesterday afternoon fighting the idea that his decisions on nationality and naturalisation should be subject to legal processes and appeal to the courts or a tribunal. The Minister of State told us today that in carrying out his discretion he is bound by the decisions about the law made by judges.

Mr. Raison: That is not what I said. I do not say that how we exercise our discretion is bound by the law set out by judges. Discretion is about moving away from the law. I said that the law, which is what we are talking about, is as set out by the judges.

Mr. Tilley: The hon. Gentleman has merely confirmed what I thought he said and what I judged him to be saying—that he is bound by the judges in the interpretation of the law and in exercising discretion. I stick to my point about the contrast between the two approaches, but both Ministers were wrong.
The law is created by Parliament and when we find that it has been interpreted by judges in ways that we never


intended it is the job of Ministers to bring the law back to Parliament to get it changed in order to ensure that the will of Parliament is carried out.
I shall be brief, because we wish to discuss other matters before the guillotine falls. I agree with everything that my hon. Friends have said about the injustices and impracticalities of the proposal in clause 1. They have demonstrated the widespread concern that exists about the motives behind the Bill and how it will work. That concern is widespread in the sense that it is felt in many parts of the country and also in the sense that all the ethnic minorities, and many people who are not members of ethnic minorities, are concerned about what will happen.
I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and also with the Minister over the suggestion that the removal of jus soli—automatic citizenship by birth—and the removal of dual nationality are separate. I believe that they are connected. This debate has shown how they are involved in what can be called the dynamic of racialist demand. Once there is no longer automatic citizenship by birth, this engenders the demand that there should not be automatic citizenship for people who are citizens of another country. This is followed in logical sequence by the demand for mass deportation of black people, misnamed repatriation, by those who favour the proposal. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has thought of another euphemism today—re-emigration. The House and the country will be shocked by the mildness of the Minister's repudiation of that idea.
Our debates have established that for the Government the abolition of automatic citizenship by birth in this country is the most important part of the Bill. This emphasis supports our view about the racialist intent as well as the racialist effect of the Bill. The Minister guesses that the number of children affected each year will be between 3,000 and 6,500. Of those, one can say, for the sake of argument, that 500 are stateless, apart from not becoming British citizens. They have no statehood at all, even thought they were born in this country. They are the children of students, work permit holders and illegal entrants.
The vast majority of those groups are black people. The majority of black children born in this country will be full British citizens because their parents are either full black British citizens themselves or settled in this country. However, the Minister will not accept that the number of stateless children, say 400 or 500 a year, will cause concern throughout the ethnic minority. One stateless child in an Asian community within one city will spread fear throughout the community. This fear, I believe, is, in many ways, justified.
It is nonsense for the Minister to suggest that parents will be aware of the details of the Bill, that theywill know about the 10-year concession and that they will be aware, once the baby is born, that an amendment moved by the Government means that, so long as the child is here for 10 years and during those years he or she is not away for more than 90 days, citizenship can be obtained. The reality is that those people are not only largely black but largely poor. Many of them—students, work permit holders and so on—are very young. Their problem in society will be to survive as a family rather than to keep detailed legal records and obtain detailed legal advice.
Another problem will be that parents, either through ignorance or a desire not to undermine the confidence of the child, will not inform their children of the situation and that those kids will find out only when they apply for a passport. If they apply after the age of 22, the provisions to reduce statelessness—I nearly said, for getting rid of statelessness which, unfortunately, the Bill does not do—would not apply and the young adult would have no chance of getting citizenship other than by naturalisation. The Opposition have pressed this matter because it is not necessary for a new nationality law to get rid of jus soli—the qualification that birth in this country makes one automatically a British citizen.
All the matters of revision, splitting of citizenship and eliminating the problems of citizenship of the United Kingsom and Colonies could have been handled without getting rid of jus soli. The insistence of the Government on this provision makes us more convinced that their concern is immigration control. To be more precise, they are concerned about giving the appearance of tightening immigration control. There is no evidence that, between 1948 and 1980, people born in this country in transit or to parents who were here only temporarily, having gone back to the country of their parents' origin, grown up and had kids of their own, have exercised their right to come to this country. There is no evidence that this pool, as Ministers describe it in the White Paper, has ever drained, dripped or poured back into this country.
All that Ministers are doing is trying to pander to prejudice and to give the impression of tighter immigration control. I should like to contrast statements made by the Secretary of State with those of the Minister of State, who is now present. The hon. Gentleman did not repudiate on Second Reading, and I am sure he will not do so now, a speech of the Home Secretary to a Conservative audience in Leicester on 7 April 1977 when he stated:
A Conservative Government will therefore seek to introduce a new nationality law early in the next Parliament. This will remove some of the possible sources of future immigration.
That is all that the right hon. Gentleman said to his Conservative audience. Three years later, the Minister of State, who was not addressing a Conservative audience but speaking at the Sri Guru Singh Sabha Sikh temple at Slough on 15 March 1981, said:
It has also been said that the Bill is primarily an immigration measure. This is transparently not the case.
Hon. Members would like to be told which Minister was telling the truth and which reflects real Government policy. Which face of the Conservative Home Office is the true one? The removal of jus soli is not only objectionable in itself; it is also preparing the way, as the debate has shown, for the right hon. Member for Down, South and those who support him in their demand for further measures that we would regard as racialist. They are pressing for more measures in this sphere. We have heard the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), the voice of Back Bench Toryism on this issue. No other voice from the Conservative Benches has argued why this Bill should not be the first of many proposals in immigration control of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
The Government cannot buy off racialist prejudice. If they start to pay the Danegeld to the racialists, they will never be rid of them. They feel that by appearing to tighten immigration control, they will be able to buy off the prejudice. They will not be able to do so. Those who get one concession will demand more. The aim of the people


we are talking about—we have heard some of them today—is to get every black face off the streets of this country. The right hon. Member for Down, South was more open than usual about that ambition. He knows, but he will not say, that what he proposes can be achieved only by methods that are compulsory and authoritarian—in many ways, totalitarian.
8.30 pm
I take issue with the right hon. Member on one issue. He spoke about the future of inner London. He has a right to speak on that issue, because he lives in South Eaton Place. I have a right to speak about it not only because I represent Brixton, but because I live on Brixton Hill. He said that there were two views, although he outlined three. One view is that everything will he all right and that there is no problem. The two other views are that there is likely to be tension and conflict, and that there is a future of conflict because of mutual fears. He said that there are those who believe that it can be averted by persuading people, and that there are those who think that it is inevitable because of what we know about human nature and history.
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. I do not believe that it is necessarily inherent in human nature for there to be conflict of the kind that we have seen, and of which there may be more. Nor do I believe that it is the lesson of history that conflict of this kind is inevitable. The lesson of history is that it is the responsibility of politicians such as ourselves to try to avert and help to reduce those tensions. The lesson of history is that it can be done, that conflict and tension can be averted, provided that the Government of the day give a lead and show that they believe in a multi-racial society of equals, and ensure that the inner city areas about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so glibly get the resouces of housing, social services and jobs that they need.
I refuse to accept the right hon. Gentleman's message of pessimism about the future of inner city areas—certainly not in my constituency, not in Handsworth. When he spoke about Handsworth, he said that many of us who represent inner city areas know perfectly well that there are members of the ethnic minorities—black people, some young, some old—who wish to return to the country from which they or their parents came.

Mr. Proctor: In that case, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to help them to do so?

Mr. Tilley: The hon. Member misses the point. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that they would be assisted in some way if they were no longer dual nationals. That is not true. From my experience of dealing with constituents, there is no problem for people who want to go back—for instance, to Jamaica—because they are dual nationals of Jamaica and of this country. It is nonsense to suggest either that they would be assisted, or that in many cases they would be deprived of the citizenship of their country of origin because they held British citizenship.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned India. There, it is a matter of taking up the rights that might deprive people of Indian citizenship. Certainly, that does not apply to any of the West Indian islands.
Finally, I take up another comment made by the right hon. Member for Down, South. He said, after giving what

I regard as a spurious set of reasons for not having dual citizenship, that if we had dual citizenship it would maximise the anxiety of the rest of the community. There is no evidence for that. The right hon. Gentleman is trying, as he has done before, to make his prophecies self-fulfilling. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are determined that that will not happen. We believe that we can resolve the racial tensions in this country if the political will and determination are there. That is why we are so concerned about this debate.
Two great assets are enshrined in our law to achieve the purpose of removing racial tension and having a harmonious multi-racial society. One is dual nationality, which I am glad to say that the Government are maintaining, although it is threatened by the amendment to our amendment, and the second is the jus soli—the great cohesive force of the fact that any child born in this country is an automatic full British citizen. If we preserve those two assets, they will help us to create a harmonious multi-racial society.
The Government are doing two things. They are throwing away one of those great assets. That is bad enough in itself. However, in doing so, they are weakening the position of the other, the right to have dual nationality. In doing so, they are opening the floodgates to racist attacks and racism on a scale that we have not yet seen. I appeal to the House to reject the amendment to our amendment, and to accept our amendment to preseve the great assets that we have in British law.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 280.

Division No. 198]
[8.34 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dalyell, Tam


Adams, Allen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Allaun, Frank
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Anderson, Donald
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dempsey, James


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Dobson, Frank


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't' N)
Dormand, Jack


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas, Dick


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Dubs, Alfred


Bradley, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunn, James A.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dunnett, Jack


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Eastham, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Campbell, Ian
English, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, John (Newton)


Carmichael, Neil
Ewing, Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew


Cartwright, John
Field, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Flannery, Martin


Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Cook, Robin F.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cowans, Harry
Ford, Ben


Craigen, J. M.
Forrester, John


Crowther, J. S.
Foster, Derek


Cryer, Bob
Foulkes, George


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Freud, Clement






Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Ginsburg, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gourlay, Harry
Palmer, Arthur


Graham, Ted
Parker, John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parry, Robert


Grant, John (Islington C)
Pavitt, Laurie


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Penhaligon, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Prescott, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Race, Reg


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Radice, Giles


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Home Robertson, John
Roper, John


Homewood, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hooley, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Rowlands, Ted


Howells, Geraint
Ryman, John


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Sandelson, Neville


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sever, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Janner, Hon Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Short, Mrs Renée


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Kerr, Russell
Soley, Clive


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Stoddart, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Dr H. (Carmarthen)


McCartney, Hugh
Tilley, John


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Torney, Tom


McKelvey, William
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, H. (Colne V)


McNally, Thomas
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


McNamara, Kevin
Watkins, David


McTaggart, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Magee, Bryan
Welsh, Michael


Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R.


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitlock, William


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woolmer, Kenneth


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wright, Sheila


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Allen McKay.


Morton, George



Moyle, Rt Hon Roland





NOES


Adley, Robert
Alexander, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Amery, Rt Hon Julian





Ancram, Michael
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Arnold, Tom
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Goodhart, Philip


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Goodhew, Victor


Banks, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gow, Ian


Best, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gray, Hamish


Biggs-Davison, John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Body, Richard
Grist, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brotherton, Michael
Hastings, Stephen


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawkins, Paul


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hawksley, Warren


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Bamey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heddle, John


Buck, Antony
Henderson, Barry


Budgen, Nick
Hicks, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Hill, James


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butcher, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hooson, Tom


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Churchill, W. S.
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knox, David


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lamont, Norman


Cockeram, Eric
Lang, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Latham, Michael


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Corrie, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Costain, Sir Albert
Lee, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Critchley, Julian
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Loveridge, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Luce, Richard


Dover, Denshore
Lyell, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCrindle, Robert


Dunlop, John
MacGregor, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Durant, Tony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Eggar, Tim
McQuarrie, Albert


Elliott, Sir William
Madel, David


Emery, Peter
Major, John


Eyre, Reginald
Marland, Paul


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marlow, Tony


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mates, Michael


Farr, John
Mather, Carol


Fell, Anthony
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mawby, Ray


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mayhew, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mellor, David


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman






Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Richard


Molyneaux, James
Shersby, Michael


Monro, Hector
Silvester, Fred


Montgomery, Fergus
Sims, Roger


Moore, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Morgan, Geraint
Speed, Keith


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Speller, Tony


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Spence, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mudd, David
Sproat, Iain


Murphy, Christopher
Squire, Robin


Myles, David
Stainton, Keith


Neale, Gerrard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Needham, Richard
Stanley, John


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Martin


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stokes, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Tapsell, Peter


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Parris, Matthew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thompson, Donald


Pawsey, James
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Percival, Sir Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pink, R. Bonner
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Pollock, Alexander
Trippier, David


Porter, Barry
Trotter, Neville


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Waddington, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wakeham, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raison, Timothy
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rathbone, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wall, Patrick


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Walters, Dennis


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Whitney, Raymond


Rossi, Hugh
Wickenden, Keith


Rost, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Royle, Sir Anthony
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)



Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'Where' to `ceases' in line 26 and insert 'an order to which this subsection applies'.—[Mr. Luce.]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I understand that this amendment is being taken with Government amendment No. 3. The difference between the amendment and the text of the Bill appears partly to consist in the omission of the Adoption (Hague Convention) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. May I be permitted to ask whatever happened to the Adoption (Hague Convention) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969? Perhaps we could be satisfied about that before making the amendments.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I

appreciate the point. Clause 1(6), as it was originally introduced, referred to four Acts which contained a definition of a convention adoption order. One of them, the Adoption (Hague Convention) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, is now omitted because it provided for orders which are specified orders within the terms of the other Acts referred to in the clause. I hope that that answers the question.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 29, at end insert—
`(7) Subsection (6) applies to—

(a) any Convention adoption order within the meaning of the Adoption Act 1976, the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 or the Children Act 1975; and
(b) any specified order within the meaning of the said Act of 1976, the said Act of 1978 or the Adoption Act 1968.'.—[Mr. Luce.]

Clause 3

ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: MINORS

Mr. Raison: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
`(b) that the parent in question was employed in relevant employment (but not necessarily the same relevant employment) throughout the period of two years ending with the date of the birth and was on that date employed in overseas employment; and'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may also consider the following amendments:

Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, after `employment)', insert
'either in the United Kingdom or overseas'.

Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8.

Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 39, at end insert
', and
(bb) with any association established outside the United Kingdom of which a company or association established in the United Kingdom has been a subscribing member for at least three years. '.

Government amendments Nos. 10 to 14.

Government amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 18, at end insert—
`(8) For the purposes of subsection (3) a partner in a firm established in the United Kingdom is to be regarded as employed in employment with the firm, but a partner in a firm established outside the United Kingdom is not to be so regarded.'.

Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment No. 15, at end add
'unless such firm is a member of an association of which a United Kingdom firm is a member'.

Government amendments Nos. 49, 50, 66 and 67.

Mr. Raison: I undertook in Committee to consider sympathetically the possibility of making various changes in the arrangements in clause 3 which provide for British citizenship to be acquired, as an entitlement and on application, by a child born overseas to a parent who is a British citizen by descent and who has ties with this country through his or her employment. These amendments result from that undertaking, and I believe that they will meet the concerns that have been expressed by a number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
It may be helpful if I explain in general terms what we have sought to do. First, in amendments Nos. 5, 6, 12 and 13 we have reduced the qualifying period of employment


from five to two years and have enabled relevant employment in the United Kingdom or with more than one company or association in the United Kingdom or overseas to count towards the qualifying period. The Home Secretary will have discretion in special circumstances to reduce the period of relevant employment.
Secondly, in amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 14 and 15, we have sought to widen the categories of relevant employment. Employment with a company or association established outside the United Kingdom will now count where it has been arranged by a company or association established in the United Kingdom. So, in those circumstances, will employment overseas with a company or association which is associated with a company or association established in the United Kingdom. Partners in a company or association established in the United Kingdom will be able in suitable circumstances to meet the employment requirement.
Thirdly, in amendment No. 11, we have provided that brief intervals between posts in relevant employment shall not disqualify. Also, a woman will be deemed to be in relevant employment when her child is born, if she had been so employed within six months of the birth; the six-month period preceding the birth of the child will then count towards the qualifying period.
I believe that these amendments will substantially extend the ambit of the provisions in clause 3 which enable British citizens by descent who have ties with this country, mainly through their employment, to secure British citizenship for their children born overseas, as an entitlement on application. They are, we believe, an effective response to the concern that has been expressed, both in this House and outside it, about the need to ensure that people who have real ties with this country, particularly through the nature of their work, should be able to secure British citizenship for their children, since they are representing British interests when these children are born. These amendments will considerably extend the range of people who will now be able to apply for citizenship for their children in this way.
These amendments, too, must be seen in the general context of what we are doing in this Bill as a whole to help children born overseas to British citizens by descent. They should be seen together with the provisions of subsection (7), which enables children born overseas to British citizens by descent to acquire British citizenship when they come back to this country and live here with their families, and with the provisions of new clauses 1 and 2 which seek to preserve the effects of the current system of consular registration for a limited period. In all, this is a substantial programme of measures to benefit children born overseas to British citizens by descent—a programme which in many respects is more generous than the current arrangements. But it is only right that when families have a real and continuing tie with this country they should be entitled to secure British citizenship for their children born overseas.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I warmly welcome the amendments. They are vitally important to the Bill and they will bring considerable relief to many people who have been concerned about their circumstances. I welcome

them because I, like other hon. Members, have given close attention to representations that have been made to me by employers, their employees and the CBI.
It is right that the qualifying period for employment overseas for the purpose of passing on citizenship should be shortened from five years to two. The change clearly goes some way to meet the objections of employers and their employees on this point. The new provisions, with subsection (3), also imply that the two-year qualifying period could be served in the United Kingdom, overseas, or partly in each. Thus employees would be able to have a child overseas at any time during the two-year qualifying period. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State accepts this implication. However, it should be made explicit by inserting
either in the United Kingdom or overseas
after the brackets in clause 3(2)(b). I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my proposed amendment to his amendment No. 5, in the interests of clarity and to avoid any misunderstanding. If he cannot do that this evening, because of the severe shortage of time before 9 o'clock, I ask him to look at it again in another place.
I now come to my proposed amendment to Government amendment No. 15. The proposed subsection (8) to clause 3 provides that
a partner in a firm established outside the United Kingdom
is not in "relevant employment" for the purposes of the Bill.
The CBI has pointed out to me this week that many partners, that is, self-employed persons and their employees, who are British citizens and work overseas have, for local or commercial reasons, no formal connection with a firm based in the United Kingdom, although they are normally considered to be part of it. Although the CBI does not directly represent their employers, there is a strong feeling that neither partners nor employees should be discriminated against because of their employment status, as they are no less British.
The Government have already accepted this situation in relation to multinational companies which may also be established or incorporated independently overseas to fit in with national requirements, although the ultimate ownership may be elsewhere. The CBI takes the view, and I agree, that this point should logically and rightly be recognised in relation to partnerships and their employees. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay particular attention to partnerships in international firms of accountants, architects and other professional organisations—and not just to international trade associations—involving those on secondment or where there is a British member in membership.
To cover this point, my proposed amendment adds the words:
unless such firm is a member of an association of which a United Kingdom firm is a member".
I should perhaps have added:
This shall also apply to employees of such firms who are also British citizens".
I hope my hon. Friend will look at that point before the Bill is considered in another place.
I urge my hon. Friend to accept that amendment. If he does not, many people, including the CBI, feel that some British citizens working overseas will still unfairly lose their rights to possess and transmit British citizenship and to free entry and abode in the United Kingdom. These are


two important improvements to my hon. Friend's amendments, and I hope that he will receive them sympathetically.

Mr. Raison: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I will think about the first point he raised but would prefer not to give any undertaking.
My hon. Friend proposed, secondly, that amendment No. 15 should be altered to cover partners in firms established overseas if the firm is a member of an association of which a United Kingdom firm is a member. This is intended to benefit partners and firms which are independently established overseas but which may have links with this country.
However, in our view, the amendment is too broad to achieve its aim. It would benefit partners in firms established overseas which might quite by chance belong to an association to which a firm of partners in this country also belonged. The association might be purely social, and the fact that a firm of partners in the United Kingdom and a firm of partners overseas were both members of it might not mean that the overseas firm had any fills with the United Kingdom.
The amendment might make rather more sense if it referred to partners rather than to firms as it could then benefit, for instance, partners overseas who were members of United Kingdom professional bodies. However, it refers to firms and seeks essentially to cover partnerships overseas that are associated with partnerships in the United Kingdom because, for example, they have common partners. As I have said, the amendment is too wide to achieve that purpose effectively. It is not satisfactory for the reasons that I have explained.

Amendment agreed to.

9 pm

Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendment up to the end of clause 12 moved by a member of the Government. The amendments are Nos. 6 to 8, 10 to 20, 22 and 24 and 27. Does any hon. Member wish to divide the House against any of the amendments? It seems that no one wishes to do so. That being so, I shall put them in a group if the Minister will move them.

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 3, line 31, leave out `Subsection (2) applies to' and insert
'In this section "relevant employment" means'.

No. 7, in page 3, line 35, leave out from 'Kingdom' to 'company' in line 37 and insert
`where the employee's employment with that company or association was arranged by a'.

No. 8, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
`(bb) with any company or association established outside the United Kingdom which is associated with a company or association established in the United Kingdom;'.

No. 10, in page 3, line 40, after `therein', insert—
'or a company or association established in the United Kingdom'.

No. 11, in page 4, line 9, at end insert—
`(4) For the purpose of subsection (2)(b)—

(a) where, in the case of any person, two periods of relevant employment are separated by an interval of not more than 90 days spent otherwise than in relevant employment, he shall be treated as having been employed in relevant employment throughout the interval and, if he was employed in overseas employment immediately before the interval began, as having been employed in overseas employment throughout the interval; and

(b) where the parent in question is the mother, then, if her last period of relevant employment before the birth ended in the period of 180 days ending with the date of tie birth, she shall be treated as having been employed in relevant employment throughout the period from the end of that period of relevant employment to the date of the birth and, if she was employed in overseas employment immediately before that period of relevant employment ended, as having been employed in overseas employment on the date of the birth;
and the requirements specified in subsection (2)(c) shall not apply in relation to any period which by virtue of this subsection counts as a period of relevant employment.'.

No. 12, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'five' and insert `two'.

No. 13, in page 5, line 2, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
'(a) "overseas employment" means employment under the terms of which the employee ordinarily works outside the United Kingdom; and'.

No. 14, in page 5, line 9, leave out from `association' to end of line 18.

No. 15, in page 5, line 18, at end insert—
'(8) For the purposes of subsection (3) a partner in a firm established in the United Kingdom is to be regarded as employed in employment with the firm, but a partner in a firm established outside the United Kingdom is not to be so regarded. —[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 4

ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: CITIZENS OF THE BRITISH DEPENDENT TERRITORIES ETC.

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 5, line 27, after `(a)', insert `subject to subsection (2A).'.

No. 17, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
'(2A) So much of subsection (2)(a) as requires the person in question to have been in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the period there mentioned shall not apply in relation to a person in whose case the Secretary of State is satisfied that he was settled in the United Kingdom immediately before commencement.'. —[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 6

RIGHT TO REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF RESIDENCE IN UNITED KINGDOM OR RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT.

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 7, line 2"7 at end insert—
'(2A) Subject to subsection (2C), if, on an application for the registration of a person under subsection (2) as a British citizen, that person satisfies the Secretary of State that he was engaged in relevant service throughout any period (of whatever length), that period shall for the purposes of subsection (2) be treated as a period throughout which he was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) "relevant service" means—

(a) Crown service under the government of the United Kingdom; or
(b) service under any international organisation of which the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's Government therein is a member; or
(c) service in the employment of any company or association established in the United Kingdom.
(2C) A person shall not be registered under subsection (2) wholly or partly by reason of service within subsection (2B)(b) or (c) unless it seems to the Secretary of State fitting that he should be so registered by reason of his close connection with the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 7

REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF MARRIAGE

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 8, line 2, leave out `two' and insert 'five'.

No. 20, in page 8, line 13, at end insert—
'(3) On an application for her registration as a British citizen made within five years after commencement by a woman who at the time of the application is married, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause her to be registered as such a citizen if—

(a) immediately before commencement she would (if she had applied for it) have been entitled under section 6(2) of the 1948 act to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her being or having been married to the man who is her husband on the date of the application under this subsection; and
(b) that man either—

(i) became a British citizen at commencement but has ceased to be such a citizen as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or
(ii) would have become a British citizen at commencement but for his having ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation.'. —[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 10

RENUNCIATION

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 10, line 12, at end insert
`in right of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.'. —[Mr. Raison.]

Clause 12

MEANING OF BRITISH CITIZEN BY DESCENT"

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 10, line 35, after `3(2)', insert
`or (Right to registration as British citizen by virtue of father's citizenship etc.)'.

No. 25, in page 10, line 36, after `(b)', insert 'subject to subsection (1A),'.

No. 26, in page 11, leave out lines 4 to 14 and insert—
`(iii) had the right of abode in the United Kingdom by virtue only of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of Immigration Act 1971 as then in force (connection with United Kingdom through parent or grandparent), or by virtue only of that paragraph and paragraph (c) of that subsection (settlement in United Kingdom with five years' ordinary residence there), or by virtue only of being or having been the wife of a person who immediately before commencement had that right by virtue only of the said paragraph (b) or the said paragraphs (b) and (c); or
(iv) being a women, was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of her registration as such a citizen under section 6(2) of the 1948 Act by virtue of having been married to a man who at commencement became a British citizen by descent or would have done so but for his having died or ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or

(c) subject to subsection (1A), being a woman born outside the United Kingdom before commencement, she is a British citizen as a result of her registration as such a citizen under section 7 by virtue of being or having been married to a man who at commencement became a British citizen by descent or would have done so but for his having died or ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or

(d) he is a British citizen by virtue of registration under section 8 who, having before commencement ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation, would, if he had not so ceased, have at commencement become a British citizen by descent by virtue of paragraph (b)(i) or (ii); or
(e) he is a British citizen by virtue of registration under section 11 who immediately before he ceased to be a British citizen as a result of a declaration of renunciation, was such a citizen by descent; or
(f) he is a person born in a dependent territory after commencement who is a British citizen by virtue or paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.
(1A) A person born outside the United Kingdom before commencement is not a British citizen "by decent" if his father was at the time of his birth serving outside the United Kingdom in service of a description mentioned in subsection (2), his recruitment for the service in question having taken place in the United Kingdom.'.

No. 27, in page 11, line 15, leave out '(1)(b)', and insert '(1A)'. —[Mr. Raison].

Clause 15

ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: MINORS

Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 13, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
`(b)that the parent in question was employed in relevant employment (but not necessarily the same relevant employment) throughout the period of two years ending with the date of the birth and was on that date employed in overseas employment;'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 29 to 35.

Mr. Luce: These amendments make changes to the arrangements in clause 15 which enable citizens of the British dependent territories by descent, who have links with the dependent territories, mainly through their employment, to secure citizenship for their children born outside the dependent territories as an entitlement, on application. The changes are comparable to those we have brought forward to clause 3, which benefit children born overseas to British citizens by descent.
Of course, the numbers of children born to citizens of the British dependent territories who will benefit from these changes will be a good deal smaller than those born to British citizens who will benefit from the changes made to clause 3. This reflects not only the smaller numbers eligible for citizenship of the British dependents: it also reflects differences in economic structure between many of the dependencies and the United Kingdom. None the less, we think that it is only reasonable that those born outside the dependent territories to citizens of the British dependent territories should have the same opportunities to acquire their parents' citizenship as children born overseas to British citizens.
The amendments fall into three broad groups. First, in amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 35, we have altered the requirement in the Bill as introduced that the parent of a child to be registered in this way should have been employed outside the dependent territories for five years in employment to which clause 15(2) relates. Instead, the parent now must have been in relevant employment—whether in dependent territories or outside them—only for two years preceding the child's birth: the types of employment which are relevant employment are now, under amendment No. 29, defined in subsection (3)


of clause 15. The parent must also be in overseas employment at the date of birth. Overseas employment is defined, under amendment No. 35, as meaning employment under the terms of which the employee normally works outside the dependent territories. Changes in relevant employment throughout the two-year qualifying period would now be permitted whereas under the Bill as introduced they would not.
In the light of these changes, a consequential amendment—No. 34—is needed to clause 15(4)(b). This provides, among other things, that the Secretary of State shall have discretion to reduce the period of relevant employment specified in clause 15(2)(b). Since, in amendment No. 28, the normal period of relevant employment has been shortened from five to two years, it follows that the reference in Clause 15(4)(b) to that period must also be altered from five years to two years.
I turn now to amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32 and to another aspect of amendment No. 35. These widen the categories of employment in which a citizen of the British dependent territories must be engaged for two years if his child born outside the dependent territories is to be eligible for citizenship of the British dependent territories by registration or application. The first of these—amendment No. 30—enables employment with a company or association established outside the dependent territories to count towards the employment requirement, where the employment was arranged by a company or association established in a dependent territory. As with the parallel amendment to clause 3, there will be certain safeguards in other parts of clause 15—for example, the requirement that the nature or terms and conditions of the employment involve a close connection with one or more dependent territories—to ensure that people with very slight links with a dependent territory through their employment overseas are excluded.
The second amendment in this group, amendment No. 31, covers full-time employment with any company or association established outside the dependent territories where that concern is associated with a company or association established in a dependent territory. Under the definition in clause 3(7)(c) as applied to this clause, a company or association is associated with another when one of them is directly or indirectly controlled by the other, or if each of them is directly or indirectly controlled by a third company or association.
This amendment would benefit, for example, a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent who is working overseas for a multinational company, whether its headquarters are in a dependent territory or elsewhere, where the company has interests in a dependent territory; or, alternatively, the employee of a multinational company based in a dependent territory who is required to serve abroad as part of his career. Such a person would, of course, also have to show that he or she had close connections with a dependent territory through his work and that he intended to maintain close connections with a dependent territory in future.
The third amendment in this group is amendment No. 32. It will enable a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent who is employed full-time by an international organisation which includes companies or associations established in the dependent territories among its members to secure citizenship of the British dependent territories for his or her child born overseas, provided he meets the other requirements of clause 15(2).
Finally, in this group of amendments, amendment No. 35 provides, amongst other things that partners in companies and associations established in a dependent territory will be regarded as employees of those companies and associations.
I conclude with amendment No. 33. It falls into two parts. The first is to cover the case of a person who has gaps in his or her employment during the two years prior to the birth of his child. He may, for instance, have lost his job or given it up voluntarily, and it may have taken him a little time to find another. Clearly we do not want this kind of gap to affect an individual's chances of securing citizenship of the British dependent territories for his child. So we have provided here that, during a gap of up to 90 days between two periods of relevant employment, a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent shall be regarded as still being in relevant employment. If such a citizen was in overseas employment immediately before the gap, he shall be regarded as still being in overseas employment throughout the period.
The second part of the amendment is to cover women who give up their work to have a child. It is, of course, possible that such women will be on maternity leave from their employers and at the time of the child's birth will still be in employment. But this may not be so in all cases, and it would be wrong that a woman who is a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent should be unable to fulfil the employment requirement simply because she left work to have her baby. So this part of the amendment provides that a woman who is a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent, who has been in relevant employment in the 180 days leading up to the birth of her child, shall be regarded as being in relevant employment. If the employment she was in was overseas employment—that is, employment ordinarily undertaken outside the dependent territories—she will be regarded as being in overseas employment at the time of the child's birth.
We believe that these amendments will ensure that those who are citizens of the British dependent territories by descent, but have a continuing link with a dependent territory through their work and in other ways, will be able to secure citizenship for their children born outside the dependent territories. These amendments must be seen, too, in the context of other provisions in the Bill for those who are citizens of the British dependent territories by descent—such as clause 15(5) which gives an entitlement to citizenship of the British dependent territories to a child born outside the dependent territories to a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent who returns to a dependency with his family and lives there for three years.
I apologise for the time that I have taken in explaining the amendments, but it is important to get on record and explain to the House the changes that we are proposing in the Bill as a result of these amendments, of which there are quite a number. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I will put together amendments Nos. 29 to 35.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 13, line 28 leave out 'Subsection (2) applies to' and insert—
'In this section "relevant employment" means'.

No. 30, in page 13, line 32, leave out from 'territories' to 'company' in line 34 and insert—
`, where the employee's employment with that company or association was arranged by a'.

No. 31, in page 13, line 35, at end insert—
`(bb) with any company or association established outside the dependent territories which is associated with a company or association established in a dependent territory;'.

No. 32, in page 13, line 38, after 'territory', insert—
'or a company or association established in a dependent territory'.

No. 33, in page 13, line 38, at end insert—
'(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b)—

(a) where in the case of any person, two periods of relevant employment are separated by an interval of not more than 90 days spent otherwise than in relevant employment, he shall be treated as having been employed in relevant employment throughout the interval and, if he was employed in overseas employment immediately before the interval began, as having been employed in overseas employment throughout the interval; and
(b) where the parent in question is the mother, then if her last period of relevant employment before the birth ended in the period of 180 days ending with the date of the birth, she shall be treated as having been employed in relevant employment throughout the period from the end of that period of relevant employment to the date of the birth and, if she was employed in overseas employment immediately before that period of relevant employment ended, as having been employed in overseas employment on the date of the birth;
and the requirement specified in subsection (2)(c) shall not apply in relation to any period which by virtue of this subsection counts as a period of relevant employment.'.

No. 34, in page 13, line 44, leave out 'five' and insert `two'.

No. 35, in page 14, leave out line 33 and insert—
'(7) Section 3(7) and (8) shall apply for the purposes of this section with the following modifications, namely—

(a) in section 3(7)(a) and (8), for "outside the United Kingdom" substitute "outside the dependent territories"; and
(b) in section 3(8), for "in the United Kingdom" substitute "in a dependent territory".'.—[Mr. Luce.]

Clause 18

REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF MARRIAGE

Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 16, line 6, at end insert—
'(3) On an application for her registration as a citizen of the British Dependent Territories made within five years after commencement by a woman who at the time of the application is married, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause her to be registered as such a citizen if—

(a) immediately before commencement she would (if she had applied for it) have been entitled under section 6(2) of the 1948 Act to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her being or having been married to the man who is her husband on the date of the application under this subsection; and
(b) that man either—

(i) became a citizen of the British Dependent Territories at commencement but has ceased to be such a citizen as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or
(ii) would have became a citizen of the British Dependent Territories at commencement but for his having ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation. '.
This amendment is the equivalent, for citizenship of the British dependent territories of an earlier amendment to clause 7(2).
It provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power to register as citizens of the British dependent territories the wives of those who have renounced their citizenship. As currently drafted, clause 18 makes no provision for such women: the entitlement in clause 18(1) is of no benefit to them since that requires that the husband should both have become a citizen of the British dependent territories at commencement and not have renounced his citizenship between commencement and the date of application; nor is the discretionary power in clause 18(2) of any help here, since, although that does not exclude cases of renunciation, it applies only to women whose marriages have been dissolved.
As my hon. Friend explained briefly, shortly before 9 pm, the number of cases in which it would be appropriate to register the wife of a man who had renounced citizenship are likely to be small. However, there may be deserving cases, and it has, therefore, been decided that a discretionary power should be made available to deal with them. It seems only reasonable that such a power should be provided not only in the case of British citizenship but also in the case of citizenship of the British dependent territories.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

MEANING OF CITIZEN OF THE BRITISH DEPENDENT TERRITORIES BY DESCENT"

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 19, line 7, after `15(2)', insert—
'or (Right to registration as citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of father's citizenship etc.)'.—[Mr. Luce.]

Mr. Luce: With the agreement of the House, may we take amendments Nos. 38 and 39 together, as they are closely linked?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. It seems to be the will of the House.

Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 19, line 25, after '20(1)(b)', insert 'only'.

Mr. Luce: These amendments extend and clarify the categories of citizens of the British dependent territories who are to be citizens by descent.
They are essentially aimed at making various improvements to the clause which are needed if it is to work equitably. Amendment No. 38 modifies subsection (1)(c). This provision ensures that people who become citizens of the British dependent territories through a parental or grandparental connection with a dependency are citizens of the British dependent territories by descent. However, it is possible that someone who acquires citizenship of the British dependent territories under clause 20(1)(b) through a parental or grandparental connection with a dependency might acquire citizenship of the British dependent territories on commencement under another provision of clause 20. In particular, it is possible that, say, a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country who has a mother born in a dependency might have been registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in a dependency under section 7 of the British Nationality Act 1948. Such a person would, on commencement, have a claim to citizenship of the British dependent territories both under clause 20(1)(b)—because he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies with a parent born in


a dependency—and also under clause 20(1)(a)—because he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies through his registration in a dependency.
Now we believe that someone who has a tie with a dependency through a parent but was also registered there should not be a citizen by descent, so this amendment ensures that people who become citizens of the British dependent territories under clause 20(1)(b) of the Bill are to be citizens by descent only if that is their only route to citizenship of the British dependent territories.
Amendment No. 39 defines three groups of people who we believe should be British citizens by descent. The first two sections of the amendment deal with people who renounce citizenship and then resume; they seek to ensure that such people are no better placed in terms of transmitting citizenship than they were before they renounced.
9.15 pm
The new subsection (1)(e) covers a person who has renounced citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies before commencement and is then registered as a citizen of the British dependent territories under clause 19; such a person is to be a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent, if that is the status that he would have gained, on commencement, had he not renounced before then. The next subsection, (1)(f), covers someone who has renounced citizenship of the British dependent territories after commencement and who then resumes that citizenship under the provision of clause 11 as they are applied to citizenship of the British dependent territories in clause 21. If such a person was a citizen by descent when he renounced, he will be a citizen by descent when he resumes.
The final part of amendment No. 39 covers a person who was horn in the United Kingdom after commencement to a parent who is a citizen of the British dependent territories and who would otherwise be stateless. Under paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill, a child born in these circumstances automatically becomes a citizen of the British dependent territories. Now the parent of such a child must, by definition, be a citizen of the British dependent territories by descent. Otherwise he or she would be able to transmit their citizenship to the child born here and there would be no risk of the child becoming stateless. So it is only appropriate that the child should also be a citizen by descent.
These amendments are all necessary to correct unacceptable anomalies which could affect the working of this clause. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 19, line 33 at end insert—
' or

(e) he is a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of registration under section 19 who, having before commencement ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation, would, if he had not so ceased, have at commencement become a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by descent by virtue of paragraph (b); or
(f) he is a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of registration under section 11 (as applied by section 21) who, immediately before he ceased to be a citizen of the British Dependent Territories as a result of a declaration of renunciation, was such a citizen by descent; or

(g) he is a person born in the United Kingdom after commencement who is a citizen of the British Dependent Territories by virtue of paragraph li of Schedule 2.'.—[Mr. Luce.]

Clause 24

REGISTRATION OF MINOR CHILDREN

Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
'(2) A person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement shall be entitled, on an application for his registration as a British Overseas citizen made within the period of twelve months from the date of the birth, to be registered as such a citizen if the Secretary of State is satisfied —

(a) that the requirement referred to in subsection (1)(a) of section (Right to registration as British citizen by virtue of father's citizenship etc.) are fulfilled in the case of that person's father, subsection (2)(b) of that section being for the purpose of this paragraph read as if—

(i) any reference to becoming a British citizen were a reference to becoming a citizen of any of the following descriptions, namely a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent Territories and a British Overseas citizen; and
(ii) the reference to remaining a British citizen throughout any period were a reference to being throughout that period a citizen of at least one of those descriptions (though not necessarily the same one) throughout that period; and
(b) that if that person had been born before commencement and had become a citizen of the United Kingdom. and Colonies as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of that section, he would at commencement have become a British Overseas citizen by virtue of section 23.'.
New clauses 1 and 2, which we debated yesterday, provided for the continuation of the effect of consular registration in the cases of those children born within five years of commencement whose connections are with the United Kingdom or the dependent territories. The amendment provides for those who, if they had been born and had their births registered before commencement, would, at commencement, have become British overseas citizens. British overseas citizenship is to be, in general, a non-transmissible status. But it seemed to the Government right that those who now have the avenue open to them of securing citizenship for their children through registration of the birth at a consulate should not be deprived of the opportunity of continuing to do so for a transitional period simply because the result of that registration would be that the child became a British overseas citizen.
The amendment therefore adds a new subsection to clause 24, which provides for the very rare cases—I stress that point—of registration of minor children as British overseas citizens. The subsection provides for an entitlement to registration as British overseas citizens for persons born in foreign countries within five years of commencement if certain conditions are met. Application must be made within 12 months of the birth.
The requirements that have to be met by the child's father are as follows: he must have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent before commencement who became at commencement a British citizen, a citizen of the British dependent territories, or a British overseas citizen, or would have done so but for his death. Having acquired one of those citizenships at commencement he must have retained it until the date of the application, unless in the meantime he has acquired


one of the other two citizenships instead. He must, immediately before commencement, have been married to the child's mother and resident in a foreign country.
These requirements that have to be met by the father reproduce the broad effect of the current arrangements for consular registration. It is only available in the male line, the child must be legitimate, and it is only available in foreign countries. The result is to continue to make registration available to all those who at commencement could reasonably expect that their children would be able to acquire citizenship by consular registration.
Subsection (2)(b) sets out the criterion on which the child would be registered as a British overseas citizen. It is that, had he become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on consular registration before commencement, he would have become a British overseas citizen at commencement. He would have become a British overseas citizen and not a British citizen or a citizen of the British dependent territories, because he would have lacked a parental or grandparental connection with the United Kingdom or a dependency.
With that explanation, I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

REGISTRATION BY VIRTUE OF MARRIAGE

Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 20, line 39, at end insert—
'(3) On an application for her registration as a British Overseas citizen made within five years after commencement by a woman who at the time of the application is married, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause her to be registered as such a citizen if—

(a) immediately before commencement she would (if she had applied for it) have been entitled under section 6(2) of the 1948 Act to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her being or having been married to the man who is her husband on the date of the application under this subsection; and
(b) that man either—

(i) became a British Overseas citizen at commencement but has ceased to be such a citizen as a result of a declaration of renunciation; or
(ii) would have become a British Overseas citizen at commencement but for his having ceased to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as a result of a declaration of renunciation.'.
This amendment is the equivalent for British overseas citizenship of an earlier amendment to clause 7(2). It provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power to register as British overseas citizens the wives of those who have renounced their citizenship. As currently drafted, clause 25 makes no provision for such women. The entitlement in clause 25(1) is of no benefit to them, since that requires that the husband should both have become a British overseas citizen at commencement and not have renounced his citizenship between commencement and the date of application. Nor is the discretionary power in clause 25(2) of any help here, since although that does not exclude cases of renunciation it applies only to women whose marriages have been dissolved.
As is the case in the earlier amendment relating to other kinds of citizenship, the number of cases in which it would be appropriate to register the wife of a man who had

renounced citizenship is likely to be small. However, there may be deserving cases. It has, therefore, been decided that a discretionary power should be made available to deal with them. It seems only reasonable that such a power should be provided not only in the case of British citizenship and citizenship of the British dependent territories, but also in the case of British overseas citizenship.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

PROVISIONS FOR REDUCING STATELESSNESS

Mr. Tilley: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 48, line 36 leave out 'a British Overseas Citizen'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 43, in page 48, line 37 at end insert—
`(4) A person born stateless outside the United Kingdom and the dependent territories after commencement shall be entitled to be registered as a British Overseas Citizen if on an application for his registration as a British Overseas Citizen the Secretary of State is satisfied that his father or mother was a British Overseas Citizen at the time of that person's birth'.

Mr. Tilley: If there were a prize for the most barefaced cheek in parliamentary draftsmanship, whoever drafted clause 33 would undoubtedly win it. The clause simply states:
The provisions of Schedule 2 shall have effect for the purpose of reducing statelessness.
To anyone who happened to open the Bill at that page, that might sound a worthy objective. I do not think that anyone would argue with the idea of reducing statelessness. What the clause does not say, and what I hope the House appreciates, is that the statelessness that purports to reduce is actually created by many of the first 32 clauses. To a very limited degree, it seeks to put right what we believe the Bill has done wrong in creating statelessness for the first time in British law.
As I said in an earlier debate, the Opposition are very concerned about the statelessness caused in this country. For the first time in 700 years, children will be born in this country who will have no nationality because their parents are not British citizens and are not legally and permanently settled here. We regard that as a disgraceful provision in terms of injustice to the individual children as well as its very bad effect on race relations which I mentioned in an earlier debate.
As well as creating statelessness at home, the Bill will create statelessness abroad, particularly in the third category of citizenship—the British overseas citizenship. In these two amendments, we wish to address ourselves to the problem of statelessness as created by British overseas citizenship—it is called a citizenship in the Bill, so for the sake of the debate I shall call it a citizenship—which is the new citizenship contained in part III, that is to say, in clauses 23 to 26.
When clause 33 states that the purpose is to reduce statelessness, in terms of British overseas citizenship it merely reduces the statelessness created specifically, openly and intentionally by the Government in clauses 23 to 26.
We said on Second Reading and in Committee that we are opposed in principle to the creation of British overseas citizenship. It will be the residual citizenship of those who are currently citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies


but who will not qualify at commencement either for British citizenship or for citizenship of the British dependent territories. That will affect about 1·5 million people who are currently citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Twenty thousand of them are already in this country and have been admitted for settlement. We think that it is outrageous that such people should still be British overseas citizens, even though they are legally and physically in this country.
But we are concerned in the amendment with the British overseas citizens still abroad—still, as it were, overseas—of whom there are about 1·5 million. Of those people, about 1·3 million, largely in Malaysia, are dual nationals, in that they not only have CUKC at the moment, thereby qualifying for British overseas citizenship, but have their local citizenship, largely the citizenship of Malaysia. We are not too concerned about those people. The British overseas citizenship will not be much good to them, but at least they will have a valid local citizenship of their own.
The rest, something over 200,000, are the people who are largely or almost entirely of Indian extraction, who have moved, or whose ancestors have moved, to other parts of the former British Empire, particularly on the fringes of the Indian Ocean. Some went in one direction to Malaysia—I have mentioned them already—and others went to East Africa.
We have made clear on Second Reading and in Committee our policy on the East African Asians, as they are known—the people who total about 71,000, who live in the countries of East Africa or have temporarily gone to India and who are currently admitted under the voucher system. It is a system that we regard as inadequate and which is being used very badly by the Government. We press them, even at this late stage, to give more vouchers to India for those East African Asians currently in India, because those are the people who are in some distress and are desperately queueing up to come here. They cannot get vouchers, whereas the allocation for the countries of East Africa—for those East African Asians who are in East Africa—is not being fully taken up.
We not only think that the number of vouchers should be increased. Our policy is that the East African Asians should be made full British citizens, with the right of entry to this country. The removal of their right to come into this country in 1968 was wrong. They should now be allowed to have the right that was promised to them when their countries became independent—that, by maintaining their nationality link with Britain, they would be able, when they wished, to come to this country.
We are not concerned with that issue in the amendment. We are concerned with two things. The first is our policy for those who are not in the category of East African Asians—largely people who are in Malaysia, although there are people in many other Commonwealth countries in smaller numbers who will be potential British overseas citizens if the Bill becomes law. Our policy is that those people should have local citizenship.
If the various independence Acts passed by this House over the last 20 years had been better framed, it can be said with hindsight that it would have been preferable for all the people who are not now being described as British overseas citizens— other than East African Asians—to have had local citizenship as part of the independence Acts of those now independent Commonwealth countries. We feel that it is not too late for the Government to try to

negotiate local citizenship where they can for those people. We regard that as by far the best option for those people.
We were not surprised that in Committee the Government refused to accept our policy of making East African Asians full British citizens. They insisted that those who would not get British citizenship or citizenship of the dependent territories under parts I and II of the Bill should get the residual British overseas citizenship contained in part III.
9.30 pm
Having recognised the Government's determination, while not accepting it, we attempt in the amendment to limit the damage that we believe will be caused by the decision to stick to part III and to have such limited provisions for the reduction of statelessness in clause 33. We suggest that the statelessness created by the adoption of British overseas citizenship should be not merely reduced, but abolished.
We must look carefully at British overseas citizenship. It is not citizenship in the normal sense of the word. That is why I was careful to say earlier that I called it British overseas citizenship merely for the convenience of the House. It gives no one who holds it any right of entry, any right of abode or any civic rights in any country.
We were aware of that when we attacked the proposal on Second Reading and in Committee. We said that it was another name for statelessness. We have since concluded that we slightly overstated the case—but only slightly. The people concerned are virtually stateless because the rights that attach to normal citizenship do not attach to British overseas citizenship, but we accept that the people are not stateless if they qualify for, and are given by right, a British overseas citizen's passport.
We are assured by the Government, and particularly by the Foreign Office, that such a passport will be accepted as a travel document in most countries. We were assured in Committee that if someone travelling on such a passport got into trouble he would be granted British consular help if it were needed.
Perhaps the most important vestige of citizenship that attaches to the new category is that by preserving "British" it maintains the ultimate British responsibility for the people involved. We know from the leaks of the internal documents of the Home Office that one original purpose of the idea of British overseas citizenship was to reduce the British responsibility for those people if they ever became refugees.
We hope that the fact that that ploy has been exposed means that it will not be used and that if the people concerned become refugees no Government, even the current Administration, will try to evade their fundamental duty to help people who could become refugees if the countries in which they are now living try to get rid of them, as happened in Uganda.
The category proposed by the Government has some of the appurtenances of citizenship and is just better than nothing. The people involved are not put into a worse position, except by the change of nomenclature, than they were as United Kingdom passport holders, because they had already lost their most important right—that of entry to this country—in the 1968 Act. Only in one way will those people be worse off than they are at the moment as United Kingdom passport holders. Their status is not transmissible to their children. We regard transmissibility


of citizenship as a major aspect of genuine citizenship, apart from vestigial status. Because that is not present, they will undoubtely be worse off than they are now as United Kingdom passport holders.
The children of British overseas citizens who have no other nationality and who are not eligible for local citizenship will be stateless in countries where the communities of which their parents are members are already at a disadvantage because of their lack of local citizenship. It would be adding to the problems of this group and creating problems for children yet unborn who would fall under part III and who would not be helped by clause 33 which tries to reduce statelessness.
We welcome the fact that in many countries—Malaysia, we believe, is one—these children would be eligible for local citizenship if born in Malaysia. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has conducted an inquiry in parallel with sittings of the Standing Committee on the Bill to try to elicit the facts about the position of those potential British overseas citizens who would not qualify for any other citizenship. I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee, especially my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Lyon) and for Barking (Miss Richardson). The words of Herbert Spencer describe the work of the Select Committee:
Every candle they lit exposed a greater area of darkness".
It became clear that the situation was confused. I hope that the House will excuse my mixed or contradictory metaphor. It was clear that children born to British overseas citizens in some countries would not qualify for local citizenship and that they would therefore be stateless. Equally, they would not be helped by schedule 2, which is supposed to reduce statelessness. The countries singled out by the Select Committee, which made clear that there might also be problems eleswhere, were Singapore and Malawi. I am not criticising those countries. My fear is that if the Bill is passed, Britain will be in no position to criticise other Governments or countries about racist elements in their citizenship laws. We shall be leading the field.
One of our principal approaches to the Bill was the attempt to avoid the statelessness at home and abroad that the Government are determined to create as part of their new approach to nationality. These two amendments are addressed solely to the problems of British overseas citizens living in a country where their children would not acquire the local citizenship.
We suggest that where such a child is born stateless outside the United Kingdom and dependent territories—there are provisions in schedule 2 to help those born within the United Kingdom or dependent territories—he should be
entitled to be registered as a British Overseas Citizen if on an application for his registration as a British Overseas Citizen the Secretary of State is satisfied that his father or mother was a British Overseas Citizen at the time of that person's birth.
We propose that there should be the option of registration as a British overseas citizen for children who otherwise would be completely stateless. The amendment seeks to rescue—or provide some help; clearly, it is not a complete rescue—for a handful of children, all of whom would be black, from statelessness in various countries. These children are the final innocent victims of the decolonisation process.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have not had the benefit of being a member of the Standing Committee and I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I simply ask for information. If the children of whom the hon. Gentleman is speaking were born in Malaysia or Malawi or anywhere else, would they not, under the legislation of those countries, have access to the citizenship of those countries?

Mr. Tilley: No, not necessarily. The Select Committee report went into great detail and took evidence from both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and many legal academics. It established that in Singapore and Malawi there would be problems about those children getting nationality and that there might be difficulties in other countries in certain circumstances. I believe that the total number of British overseas citizens in Malawi—my hon. Friend the Member for York would correct me if he were here, but as he is not here I can make my "guesstimates" in the knowledge that he will not contradict me—is about 4,500, and in Singapore the figure is now thought to be in hundreds, though it was once thought to be in thousands. That is an indication of the difficulties that still exist about numbers. So we are talking about a handful of children—hundreds, or possibly only dozens—who would be stateless if the amendment is not accepted.
We were surprised that this tiny concession of giving a vestigial British nationality status to a handful of children was too much for the Government to accept in Committee. However, we hope that it is not too much of a concession, in common humanity, for the House to support tonight.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am against the amendments, but I appreciate the Opposition's concern with the problem of dealing with overseas citizens. It is true that overseas citizens are, as was said in Committee, part of the debris of empire. They are the people who cannot easily be accommodated within the definition of citizenship of the British dependent territories.
I confess that originally my view was that the Green Paper was right and that the Labour Government were right in their attitude to the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who were not to qualify as British citizens, in that there should be only one other category of British citizens, namely, British overseas citizens. That would cover the citizens of British dependent territories as well as those remaining citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who were distributed around the world. Originally, I thought that that was probably the best approach to the problem, because the whole object of the policy would have been to eliminate this category altogether so that ultimately everyone would have some sort of citizenship and civic rights appertaining to particular territories.
9.45 pm
However, on reflection, especially after the more mature and detailed consideration that, as a member of the Standing Committee, one had to give the Bill, the Green Paper and the White Paper, I revised my opinion.
The British overseas citizen category covers people who cannot logically, politically or legally be accommodated within the category of British dependent territories. One must be realistic. The interests of the citizen of a British dependent territory, whether restricted to citizenship of each dependent territory, as I believe it should be, or as one overall category of citizens for all the


British dependent territories, are different. They are related more directly to the United Kingdom in that they have lived within the sovereignty and control of the United Kingdom Government more than the remainder of people who have the status of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies without the right of abode in the United Kingdom and without any real connection. However, they are resident in Commonwealth countries which are now independent. That gives them an entirely different relationship to the United Kingdom. Whatever their citizenship status, they are subjects, in the proper sense of the word, of their host Governments. Therefore, it is not possible for the British Parliament to legislate meaningfully.
However, such people enjoy, and will enjoy until the Bill is passed, the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. What can we do? How do we solve the problem of the people who are entitled to the status of citizenship but who are resident in independent sovereign States around the world? The problem is an anachronism which should never have occurred. We should never have had British overseas citizens in the sense that we have to deal with the problem today. The people about whom we are talking do not belong to the United Kingdom. They are relics of our imperial past. They should never have been left out of the citizenship legislation enacted for each territory in the colonial Empire as they gained independence. That is just one of the mistakes that we made.
The problem is acknowledged by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), if not by the Opposition Front Bench. The 1948 Act was a mistake. In 1948 there was an opportunity to distinguish clearly who belonged to the United Kingdom and who belonged elsewhere. The mistake was that we took a foolish and sentimental view that Britain had a continuing obligation to all the people of every territory within the British Empire which obtained independence even though, as we all now realise, the real responsibility lay with the host Governments.
We passed independence legislation for each territory and left a loophole. The legislation provided that certain people would not automatically achieve citizenship of the new independent country, whether as an option or as a result of internal legislation. Groups of people round the world were left as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
The foolishness arose in the early 1960s out of the mistaken belief by the United Kingdom Government that they were providing for the interests of people who were British. They were providing for people such as the so-called white settlers of East Africa, and especially of Kenya. The provisions for allowing residents in East Africa to retain their United Kingdom citizenship were aimed at people whose home was really the United Kingdom—those whom we wish to allow to return ultimately to Britain, and meanwhile to keep British citizenship. Because of the phraseology used in the appropriate legislation, those who benefited included large numbers—perhaps thousands—of people who did not become eligible, or did not opt for, citizenship under the legislation. That was a mistake of nearly 20 years ago which has resulted in today's thorny problem of hundreds of thousands of people—perhaps 1½ million around the world—who are entitled to the status of British overseas citizenship.
Thank goodness not all of those people hold the citizenship conferred upon them by the Bill as their only citizenship. We are discussing only those who have no other citizenship and to whom we owe, because of our errors, a moral obligation. Even so, should Britain—alone of all the countries of the world—pick up the check, as the Americans say? Is it necessary that Britain should be forced to accept responsibility for those who have no real connection with Britain? The United Kingdom abandoned responsibility for them 10 or 20 years ago. Of course, we should not bear that responsibility. We are simply discussing another mistake in legislation that has been passed by the House.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that were we to accept the amendment it would encourage some Governments, who should share the responsibilities, to reject citizenship for children who might be stateless? They could say that Britain was helping them, so why should they accept any responsibility?

Mr. Stanbrook: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have not yet come to the Opposition's responsibility, or that of the Labour Government, in these matters. It is an important and relevant consideration. Many people may feel that they have a claim on Britain through legislation, diplomatic protection or an obligation under international law, and that that is a sufficient right. Once the word "British" is attached to any citizenship status, Britain has not only a moral but a legal and international obligation.

Sir Albert Costain: Amendment No. 43 uses the words
satisfied that his father or mother was a British Overseas Citizen
It does not state that a woman must be married. Would it not be possible for any woman who has a child and wishes it to be registered in Britain to claim that a wandering British overseas citizen was its father?

Mr. Stanbrook: What my hon. Friend says is perfectly true. Knowing the care with which Opposition spokesmen approach such legislation, I suppose that they carefully considered that possibility and deliberately omitted the detailed provision that would be necessary to avoid the nuisance to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Tilley: I do not think that we have given that possibility a great deal of thought, not having the detailed and clearly picaresque experiences of the hon. Member.

Mr. Stanbrook: For a member of an alternative Government, that is a poor show. The Opposition have available to them experts and vast funds of advice, and vast funds, I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), which would have enabled them to avoid that trap. If the Opposition had looked at earlier amendments, they would have seen the way in which this could have been dealt with to avoid the mischief to which my hon. Friend referred.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) referred to British overseas citizens as people who have apparently no civic rights. The question is what can be done about them. It is fair to give him credit for looking at it as he has done. His great fear is that a condition of statelessness may arise. The common sense of the situation makes it incumbent upon us to provide that there shall not be any transmissibility in this category. We want it to


come to an end as soon as possible. Therefore, it follows that the two Opposition amendments are destructive of the point of the policy.
We want to eliminate this class of citizenship. We acknowledge that it is unsatisfactory. Everyone agrees that it is not worth very much as a concept of citizenship. There are not many civic rights, if any, attached to it. The only duty or obligation which it can claim upon Britain is that the word "British" is attached. If this status is created in British nationality legislation it follows that if any of these people were to be expelled from the countries in which they are living there would in international law be an obligation upon the United Kingdom to take them in. That is a prospect which frightens me, if it does not frighten the spokesmen for the Opposition. It must be avoided.
These people are living in various countries such as Malaysia, East Africa, Singapore and Malawi. For the most part, they are contented with their lot and are not apparently anxious to move anywhere else, apart from those who are covered by the special voucher scheme. The problem does not demand an immediate solution. Thank goodness for that. If it did, it might well result in a situation such as that we faced in 1971 when Asians were expelled from Uganda. That is the core of the problem.
We understand that there are well over 150,000 people who have no citizenship other than this. This so-called citizenship—I am entitled to refer to it in that way because it is bereft of normal citizenship rights—would enable them to claim upon Britain were they to be expelled from the territories where they are. Worst of all, it means that their host Government feel no obligation to them. They know that ultimately if they were to expel these people Britain could, because I do not think it should, feel obliged to take them in even though they are remote from us in real connections and legal obligations.
10 pm
Perhaps the most important consideration is that of the British overseas citizens who live in Malawi. The present citizenship laws of that country provide that no one who is not of African descent is entitled to its citizenship. Therefore, those residents in Malawi who at present cannot claim citizenship by virtue of that factor—and that means a great many of the East African Asians who live there—might one day find themselves expelled from Malawi. If they have no citizenship in Malawi, who will take them in?
Much criticism is levelled by people in this country against Britain and British Governments for the way in which they behave on international humanitarian issues. It is misguided and ignorant criticism. Our record, in relation to our capacity to satisfy various demands made upon us, is probably the best in the world. It certainly is when one considers the size of our country, the density of its population and the numbers of people already accommodated here from other parts of the world—people who have no real connection with the country and whose absorbtion is accompanied by the great social friction that we are witnessing today.
It is, therefore, wrong to insist that Britain should take any more. However, we cannot resist such pressure. It arises from events that are no fault of ours. An example was the Vietnamese boat people. We felt obliged to accept 10,000 of them. They came from a part of the world for

which we had no legal, constitutional or imperial responsibilities. These people were simply cast upon the high seas——

Mr. Garel-Jones: By Communists.

Mr. Stanbrook: Yes, they were expelled by Communists. We had no obligation to these people save in the general international humanitarian sense. In spite of all our difficulties, and with all the problems that we have brought upon ourselves by this humane attitude towards the legal fiction, the mistake in our legislation that has given us such large immigrant populations which we cannot peacefully absorb, we agreed to accept 10,000 of these people.
No one could criticise this country for its attitude towards future absorbtion and acceptance of refugees from other parts of the world. We have done our bit and more. It is therefore perfectly proper for us to say that a problem exists, that people have a legal connection with us, but is it right for us to bear the responsibility for their future? Of course, we should not bear it. That has been recognised by all British Governments. The position would probably be the same if a Labour Government were now in power and we faced the same situation.
The Conservative Government in 1971 and 1972 accepted what they thought was a moral obligation—I do not think that it was a legal one—to admit here at least 25,000 Ugandans of Indian descent when they were expelled by General Amin. It was said at the time that there was an international obligation on us to accept them because they had retained the status of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. However, shortly afterwards the Home Secretary, the then Mr. Robert Can, said in the House that it would never happen again, that if the same position arose Britain could not be expected to accept people expelled in such circumstances. So much for the legal obligation and for the duty which the British Government of the time felt they had towards these people.
It was not in discharge of an illegal or international obligation that the Ugandan refugees were taken into this country. It was a pure and simple humanitarian act. All the arguments about international law were applied, and they had the so-called citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But everyone knew that they did not belong to us. Everyone knew that they were Indians and that, although they lived in Africa, if they had a home to go to other than Uganda, it was India. Nevertheless, at that time, one argument that was used was that we had an international obligation to those people. Indeed, the Attorney-General of the time said that they were accepted because Britain felt it had an obligation to do so under international law.
That did not stop the present Lord Carr of Hadley from announcing publicly and gratuitously from the Dispatch Box that it would not happen again. He was discouraged on political grounds from accepting any obligation for such people in future. The announcement he made on behalf of the Conservative Government would have been confirmed by a Labour Government in similar circumstances. So far as any mass expulsion of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies has occurred, that stance of the British Government has been confirmed. It was maintained by Labour Governments.
Now we have an opportunity to wind up that problem. It is clear that if only the Government would be more strong-minded that could be achieved without much difficulty. The people concerned belong to the country in which they live. It may be that according to the law of that country they are not technically citizens of that country, but they jolly well ought to be, as everyone knows. The only reason why they are not is that Britain in the end will pick up the check. That is an intolerable situation which should not be allowed to continue.
Labour Members may smile——

Mr. Edward Lyons: The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Stanbrook: We have had the Labour Party's alternative policy, so we know what a future Labour Government would do. They would negotiate with the host countries concerned. They would call a conference. I agree, it is a splendid idea to call a conference, but the Labour policy would be just the same as the Conservative policy in similar circumstances. It is that these people belong in the country where they now live. They have no real claim upon Britain. There is no connection by family, by blood or by law. We are foolish to maintain that there is. While we do, the individual host Governments find it convenient to assume that there is such an obligation, and find it convenient not to grant to these people normal citizenship rights.
Labour Party policy is to call a conference of Commonwealth countries. All the people living around the world who at present have the right to call themselves British are to gather together through their representatives with the Governments concerned to discuss how local citizenship or local rights and duties can be conferred upon them. That is right and proper. It is common sense and obvious. If that were the end of the Labour Party's policy, one would say that it was a splendid idea. The trouble is that its policy goes a step further. The Labour Party says, in effect, "Before we get to the conference we shall tell everybody concerned that if they will not have them we shall have them. We shall have them all." The Labour Party says "If we are in power we shall not only take them in immediately without any entry vouchers or certificates of entitlement but"——

Mr. Garel-Jones: It will not do it.

Mr. Stanbrook: It says that it will do it. It says, in effect, that when they come to this country it will give them British citizenship from that very moment. What a lot of rubbish! It is codswallop. It is absolute nonsense. The Labour Party will never do it. It knows that very well. It talks in this way only because it is indulging in the irresponsibility of being in Opposition.
The Labour Party knows as well as we do that the country could not afford such a policy. We could not tolerate another 150,000 people from the different parts of the world who would be totally out of place in this country. They would come from Asia, Africa and elsewhere. The Labour Party knows very well that we cannot tolerate the prospect of the present racial tensions being accelerated and aggravated by such an increase in the population by people from other parts of the world.
It seems that all this will be done in the name of a legal obligation. As I have said, it is a load of nonsense. Those who are legally qualified like the hon. Member for York know that as well as anybody.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman said it himself at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Stanbrook: No future Labour Government would adopt such a policy. Its adoption would result in admitting to the United Kingdom large numbers of people of the sort that I have described and endowing them with British citizenship.
The Labour Party's policy in this respect, as in so many others, is complete nonsense. It is irresponsible. Apart from the fact that it would involve telling Commonwealth Governments "We shall take them if you will not have them", there is the germ of a sensible idea that I commend. We are talking about people who belong elsewhere and not in Britain. We have too many such people already for our social peace and we do not want any more.
Therefore, pressure must be applied on these people throughout the world to ensure that they preserve or acquire rights of citizenship locally that will ensure that there is no expulsion and no acceptance by Britain. Whatever my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or the Minister may say, that is the reality behind the Government's policy. It will not be possible to accept into the United Kingdom large numbers of immigrants from the New Commonwealth or from Pakistan.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose——

Mr. Edward Lyons: rose——

Mr. Stanbrook: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones).

Mr. Garel-Jones: With respect, I suggest that my hon. Friend is being slightly naive about the purpose of the constitutional conference that the Labour Party is proposing. The reason that it is suggesting such a conference is that it does not dare to suggest in a manifesto the sort of policies that the Left wing would like to put forward. Therefore, it suggests that there should be a constitutional conference. It dangles the prospect that these policies might ultimately be implemented. The reality is that they will not be implemented after the ensuing election.

Mr. Stanbrook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the amendment relates to children born after the Bill is enacted? As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is directing his remarks to those who are alive now. It is not for me to say that none of his speech has been within the rules of order. However, does he think that a guillotined debate is a proper time for making a filibuster?

Mr. Stanbrook: I accept that from the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who made many useful speeches in Committee when he was present. We are talking about an amendment which proposes to deal with a particular problem, which is statelessness among a particular category. However, it is not for me, and it was not for the hon. and learned Member, to say what is in order.
We are talking about British overseas citizens. We are talking about the parents of those whom this amendment proposes to benefit. Therefore, it is important for us to consider whether there should be an extension of that category. Do we want it to be increased? Do we want this status of British overseas citizen to be passed on to another


generation? Of course we do not. We do not want more people living around the world with no connection with this country to be dignified by the appellation "British" because to us that means some obligation, not a legal one, but possibly——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt you heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons)—if I may still refer to him as that—raise a point of order with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). We all know that raising points of order between hon. Members is not in order. However, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you heard the point of

order which my hon. and learned Friend raised. Is it in order to go through the whole gambit of whether we should have immigration and whether there are thousands of people in the context of this amendment? As my hon. and learned Friend said, is it not the case that this amendment refers to children only?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I take the point of order. I believe that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was relating what he had to say to the amendment although I think that the House has now taken the point. We should not have tedious repetition. I ask him to come to the point.

Mr. Stanbrook: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has taken my point, and for that reason I propose to sit down.

Mr. Jim Marshall: You now understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why the Government were compelled to introduce a guillotine motion to curtail debate in Committee. We have just had a fine example of the contributions which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has made at successive stages of this legislation, particularly in Committee. I do not wish to pick up all the points which he made on a number of occasions. Perhaps I could draw the attention of the House to some of the points which he made. Those points are important, in my opinion, and will be of paramount importance to the people about whom he has spoken so disparagingly—namely, people who will be British overseas citizens.
On a number of occasions the hon. Member has referred to mistakes which have been made in drafting local citizenship forms. He said that we should never have been left with this problem. He said that the mistakes made by British Governments gave rise to that problem. He has repeated the assertions made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on a number of occasions when, with the benefit of hindsight, the 1948 nationality legislation has been condemned and has been said to be a mistake.
In human terms, that means that there are 1½ million people scattered around the world, the debris of the old British Empire, people whom in the past the House was proud to call British subjects, people whom, in the past, the House has been only too pleased to use to advance the interests of the United Kingdom and of the British Empire as a whole. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, those people are seen as one mistake after another. That is an outright condemnation not only of the view of the hon. Member for Orpington but of the way in which the Tory Party, in its mass exit from empire, is treating those who are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
I remind the House of who British overseas citizens will be. They are people who at present share the same citizenship as you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The big difference is that since 1962 successive Governments have sought to withdraw from that group the right of entry and abode and the right to exercise civic rights. That is a condemnation of successive Governments since 1962. I regret that I include my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) in this, but it is even greater condemnation of what we are doing to refer to those people as United Kingdom passport holders. I and most of my right hon. and hon. Friends are United Kingdom passport holders, but the use of the phrase seeks to suggest that that group possesses a citizenship completely different from that which we hold. I do not accept that.
Many of the provisions of schedule 2 would have been unnecessary had the Government accepted an amendment in my name, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). It would have enabled citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have no other claim to nationality and no other right of abode in another country to become British citizens. Had the proposal been accepted, most of the provisions of the schedule would be unnecessary.
The new British overseas citizenship is virtually meaningless. It gives a person the right to reside in no country. It gives him the right to exercise no civic responsibilities in any country. In an earlier debate, we mentioned people termed "overstays", or illegal

immigrants. The few people who fall into that category after commencement and who are at present citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will become British overseas citizens. If they have children in this country, those children will be stateless. Only under the provisions of schedule 2 will they be able to obtain citizenship, and that only the meaningless British overseas citizenship. Those difficulties could have been overcome if the Government had been prepared to accept the amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South.
I shall repeat a charge that I have made on several occasions. The category of British overseas citizenship is the logical consequence of the successive immigration Acts that have been placed on the statute book since 1962. It is the final solution for that group of 1·5 million people. This country is echoing the remarks made by the hon. Member for Orpington. Britain is saying that such people do not have any right to come into the United Kingdom. It is saying that we do not accept that we have any moral or legal obligations towards them. In order to make that point clear, we shall remove any last vestige of a direct link with the United Kingdom through the generic citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That is the logical conclusion of successive immigration Acts.
For that reason, if for no other, we should oppose the creation of British overseas citizenship. I shall large my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party and in the Labour Party at large to accept policy commitments that will implement the type of proposals that I have put forward in Committee over the past five or six months. In that way we could finally remove the stain and dark shadow that is being cast over this country's integrity and honour by the creation of British overseas citizenship.

Mr. Raison: During the course of his remarkable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) spoke about British overseas citizens and said that they had been described as the debris of empire. He argued that we should not have to be in the position where we have to face up to the problem of British overseas citizens and the need for such citizenship. He argued that the situation was anachronistic and that the matter would have been resolved if the independence legislation, which accompanied the move away from colonies and towards independent Commonwealth status, had been better ordered. My hon. Friend also argued that the 1948 Act was mistaken in its treatment of this problem.
In Committee, hon. Members from both parties put forward the same sort of argument. However, we must face the fact that there is a category that must be dealt with. That is the subject of this debate. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) said that he was opposed to the British overseas citizenship scheme in principle. He acknowledged that it confers more advantages on the British overseas citizens than he had been inclined to accept. However, he argued that it is not a proper form of citizenship and tried to spell that out. I have never argued that this is a fully-fledged citizenship, in the sense that we are aiming at in British citizenship. However, it is necessary and is the best solution to a problem that must be faced. We cannot wish it to go away.
The concern expressed by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) is well understood. However, if he were to look closely at the facts he would discover that we are not treating this group shabbily. We


are trying to face the problem. It should be borne in mind that elsewhere in the Bill—and outside it—we give fair treatment to those who will become British overseas citizens. We are continuing the special voucher scheme for those currently eligible in East Africa. Those who have gone to India from East Africa also benefit. That is an important and firm commitment on our part. We all know that the Labour Party passed the 1968 Act, which first brought those people under immigration control. The Bill puts the matter on a sensible footing, by conferring a citizenship that accurately reflects their position.
10.30 pm
There is, however, not only the special voucher scheme. Clause 4 confers a most generous entitlement to registration on British overseas citizens who are accepted for settlement if they meet certain residential requirements. They must have been in the United Kingdom for five years preceding their application. They may, however, be absent for periods not exceeding 450 days in all. All of this seems to me to be fair treatment and I reject the charge that in some way we are giving shabby treatment to the British overseas citizens.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 introduced by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central would give an entitlement to registration as British overseas citizens to the children of such citizens born stateless outside the United Kingdom and the dependencies. This entitlement would be an absolute one and not dependent on later periods of residence in the United Kingdom and the dependent territories. It would arise even though the person may have ceased to be stateless.
The Government's view of the principle involved was set out in paragraph 103 of the White Paper. I stress that the Bill's provisions are in accordance with the convention of the reduction of statelessness. Under the convention, there can be two approaches. The first is to provide that a child who would otherwise be stateless automatically acquires his parents' citizenship at birth. The other is to provide that he shall acquire citizenship by registration only after a period of residence in one's territory.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 provides for the second alternative. I think that that is reasonable. By definition, British overseas citizenship is a status which has only distant connections with the United Kingdom or an existing dependency. It is a status which is intended to be residual and transitional. It is, therefore, only in the most exceptional circumstances that one should provide for the citizenship to be passed on. It is reasonable to provide for this where the child has been resident here or in a dependency and may be expected in time to qualify for British citizenship or citizenship of the British Dependent Territories. This is the approach adopted in paragraph 4 of schedule 2.
As the House knows, we can derive considerable assistance in this matter from the Second report of the Home Affairs Committee for the Session 1980–81 on the "Numbers and Legal Status of future British Overseas citizens without other citizenship". The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central rather dismissed that report and said, in effect, that it raised more questions than it answered. I think that it was a very useful report and I think it is fair to say that it provided support in general for the position that we are taking. It indicated that in general the children

born to future British overseas citizens should have no difficulty in acquiring the citizenship of the country where their parents resided. But examples are given of Singapore and Malawi, where citizenship is restricted.
Nor, of course, can we be sure that other countries will not change their existing citizenship laws or even that they will interpret them in the same way as we do. In principle, it seems hardly desirable to provide that acquisition of one of the Bill's citizenships should depend on the legislation of other countries and not our own.
If the amendment were passed, it would mean that British overseas citizenship might be capable of being passed on indefinitely outside the United Kingdom or a dependent territory. It would also enable any country which wished to do so to deny its own citizenship to the children concerned on the grounds that they already had an entitlement to another citizenship, namely, British overseas citizenship.
Evidence was given to the Home Affairs Committee, for example, that a child born within Malaysia who would otherwise be stateless shall acquire Malaysian citizenship. To accept this amendment could deprive some children of Malaysian citizenship because, it could be argued, they would have an entitlement to be registered as British overseas citizens. Given the large numbers of British overseas citizens living there, I cannot believe that it makes sense that the large number of potential British overseas citizens living permanently in Malaysia should pass on BOC status to their children rather than see them become Malaysians.
Having tried briefly to set out our objections to the amendments, I hope that if the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw the amendment the House will reject it.

Mr. Tilley: The Minister has made it clear that the Government stick to their position. They want these children to remain stateless so that they will be more effective negotiating pawns in trying to force the local States to give them citizenship. We reject that sort of attitude to this handful of children as yet unborn. The very least that the House and the Government ought to do is to ensure that the children are not born stateless. That is what our amendment seeks to achieve. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to support it in the Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 270.

Division No. 199]
[10.35 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Campbell, Ian


Adams, Allen
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Allaun, Frank
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carmichael, Neil


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Conlan, Bernard


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cook, Robin F.


Beith, A. J.
Cowans, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Craigen, J. M.


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Crowther, J. S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)






Deakins, Eric
McKelvey, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dempsey, James
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McNally, Thomas


Dixon, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Magee, Bryan


Douglas, Dick
Marks, Kenneth


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunn, James A.
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Dunnett, Jack
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Mikardo, Ian


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Field, Frank
Morton, George


Flannery, Martin
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley


Forrester, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Derek
O'Halloran, Michael


Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Palmer, Arthur


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parker, John


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pavitt, Laurie


Ginsburg, David
Penhaligon, David


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Race, Reg


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Radice, Giles


Grant, John (Islington C)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Richardson, Jo


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Haynes, Frank
Roper, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Rowlands, Ted


Home Robertson, John
Ryman, John


Homewood, William
Sandelson, Neville


Hooley, Frank
Sever, John


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Sheerman, Barry


Howells, Geraint
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Short, Mrs Renée


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Hon Greville
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Soley, Clive


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stallard, A. W.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Kerr, Russell
Stoddart, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stott, Roger


Lambie, David
Straw, Jack


Leadbitter, Ted
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lestor, Miss Joan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tilley, John


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Torney, Tom


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Wainwright, B. (Dearne V)


McCartney, Hugh
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Watkins, David





Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Welsh, Michael
Winnick, David


White, Frank R.
Woolmer, Kenneth


White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Wright, Sheila


Whitehead, Phillip
Young, David (Bolton E)


Whitlock, William



Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. James Tinn.


Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)



Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Farr, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Banks, Robert
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Best, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodhart, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor


Blackburn, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Richard
Gorst, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter (Wwich W)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gray, Hamish


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grist, Ian


Brotherton, Michael
Grylls, Michael


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Hastings, Stephen


Burden, Sir Frederick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Paul


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Henderson, Barry


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hill, James


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles (Cheltanham)


Cope, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Costain, Sir Albert
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cranborne, Viscount
Kershaw, Anthony


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus


Crouch, David
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Knox, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lang, Ian


Dover, Denshore
Latham, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunlop, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lee, John


Durant, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Elliott, Sir William
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Luce, Richard


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lyell, Nicholas


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McCrindle, Robert






MacGregor, John
Newton, Tony


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Onslow, Cranley


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


McQuarrie, Albert
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Madel, David
Parkinson, Cecil


Major, John
Parris, Matthew


Marland, Paul
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Marlow, Tony
Patten, John (Oxford)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Mates, Michael
Pawsey, James


Mather, Carol
Percival, Sir Ian


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Mawby, Ray
Pink, R. Bonner


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Pollock, Alexander


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Porter, Barry


Mayhew, Patrick
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Mellor, David
Prior, Rt Hon James


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Raison, Timothy


Miscampbell, Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Moate, Roger
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Monro, Hector
Renton, Tim


Montgomery, Fergus
Rhodes James, Robert


Moore, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Morgan, Geraint
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Mudd, David
Rossi, Hugh


Murphy, Christopher
Rost, Peter


Myles, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Neale, Gerrard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Needham, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Nelson, Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Neubert, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)





Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trippier, David


Shepherd, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Silvester, Fred
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waddington, David


Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John


Speller, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spence, John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Sproat, Iain
Wall, Patrick


Squire, Robin
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waiters, Dennis


Stanley, John
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Wheeler, John


Stokes, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitney, Raymond


Tapsell, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Donald



Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Raison.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Insurance Contracts

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the European Community Documents Nos. 8144/79 and 4124/81 on insurance contract law and of the Department of Trade's explanatory memoranda of August 1979, 31st October 1980, and 12th February 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to ensure that the provisions of the proposed directive should take account of the scope for reform of United Kingdom law identified in the Law Commission's Report on Insurance Law: Non-disclosure and Breach of Warranty, Cmnd. 8064.
The documents we are considering all deal with a proposal for harmonisation of the laws of member States on insurance contracts. The Government welcome the views of right hon. and hon. Members on these draft instruments. Their consideration in a Council working group is at an early stage. We hope at least to complete the first reading during our Presidency in the second half of this year.
We are also in the course of considering the Law Commission's related report on non-disclosure and breach of warranty, and the Scottish Law Commission's recent comments, and we are still in the process of collecting views. It is, therefore, particularly useful and timely for the House to consider this topic.
I shall in general be referring to document 4124/81, as this is the latest version of the directive.
I shall briefly set the context. First, I shall deal with the development of the European insurance market. The EEC Treaty provides for freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services for all Community nationals. Nevertheless, progress in making these freedoms effective for insurance has been slow. Rules making freedom of establishment effective now cover most insurance, but those making freedom to provide services effective do not. For that, we need the so-called non-life services directive. Although that draft directive was put to the Council of Ministers in 1975, it has yet to be adopted. The Government are doing everything possible to speed up the process.
The Commission considered that, if freedom of services was to be exercised without distortion of competition, insurance contract law in the Community should be harmonised. The United Kingdom has never been persuaded by that argument, and developments in the evolution of the two draft directives have weakened it still further. In particular, the draft services directive now mainly applies to large business risks, while the draft contract law directive primarily affects consumer insurance contracts. This weakening of an already tenuous link conditions our attitude to the directive. We do not see it as necessary or even significant for the opening up of the European Community insurance market, or as likely significantly to reduce any important barrier to trade.
It is because the directive was first and foremost seen as a harmonisation measure to eliminate barriers to trade and distortions of competition, and therefore requiring uniformity, that it seeks to preclude member States from legislating further within the area that it covers to improve the lot of the consumer. The Government find it hard to accept that this would be a desirable or justifiable restriction on Parliament's freedom to improve the law.
Nevertheless, a Community directive on this subject could have value. It is in the interests of a healthy European economy that policyholders should be free to shop around for their insurance throughout the Community, and in such circumstances it would clearly be desirable to have some general minimum standard of policyholder protection. There is, therefore, a case for a directive, but it should, in our view, be a minimal one, leaving member States free to improve on its provisions, though not to fall below the minimum standard that it lays down. Be that as it may, we need in any case to consider what standards of protection—and of obligation—we wish to provide for policyholders and insurers.
The report last year of the Law Commission on insurance law—"Non-disclosure and Breach of Warranty"—is, of course, of major importance in this context. The Law Commission concluded that the law in this area is defective and that reform is necessary and desirable. My Department's consultative note on the report said that we found its arguments for this convincing. The Law Commission also criticised a number of the main features of the draft directive, and here, too, in a number of instances we expressed considerable sympathy with its arguments.
The Government have not, as I said, reached any final conclusions, but, in running briefly through the directive, I shall try to give an indication of our reactions so far.
The first and central question is that of the duty to disclose. Under our law, and that of many other member States, the insured has a general duty to disclose to the insurer every circumstance which is material to a proposed contract. Failure to do so can lead to repudiation of the contract by the insurer. In some other countries the penalty can be less stringent, depending on the circumstances, and I shall come back to that.
The definition of the duty which the proposer must fulfil if he is to have a valid claim on his insurer is set out in article 3.1. The earlier draft of this was criticised by the Law Commission and by the European Parliament and, in our view, rightly so. The Commission's redraft is a great improvement. It introduces the concepts of reasonableness, of constructive knowledge and of the prudent insurer. We are at present inclined to favour it in principle, while trying to have it refined further in ways suggested by the Law Commission. But it is already clear that a number of other member States prefer the original. A more general provision, leaving precise terminology to member States, would therefore be preferable and probably easier to agree upon.
The second major question is that of the penalty for failure to disclose material facts. Under our present law insurers can, in such circumstances, avoid the contract ab initio, irrespective of whether the insured has acted innocently, negligently or fraudulently. The draft directive, however, in article 3(3), imposes no penalty for innocent or immaterial failure and distinguishes, broadly speaking, between negligent and fraudulent behaviour. In the case of fraudulent failure, the insurer may avoid any claim. In the case of what amounts to negligent failure, the principle of proportionality would apply.
The Law Commission has criticised the principle of proportionality as unworkable in practice although attractive in principle. The Department's note described these criticisms as formidable, and we shall be deploying them in Brussels. It is true that an important change on that has been made in the Commission's redraft. It remains to


be seen how member States react to the Commission's amendments. We are not at present determined to oppose proportionality, but we shall need a great deal of convincing that, in a form acceptable to others, it can work.
The directive raises a number of other questions, many of which seem to us to cover matters which can and should remain within the individual competence of member States. They are merely likely to divert discussions in Brussels from the central questions of the major obligations imposed on insurer and insured.
My Department is pressing ahead with its consultations on the Law Commission's report and the discussions in Brussels on the draft directive. The course of those discussions during the remainder of this year will, I hope, be sufficient to allow a view to be taken on whether there is scope and need for amendment of United Kingdom law in advance of the measures likely to be needed to meet the directive's requirements as and when it is adopted.
I shall be glad to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members. I shall be especially grateful to receive those views that can be used in the Government's negotiations when we deal with these highly technical matters.

Mr. Clinton Davis: In general terms, I support the Government's view as put before the House today. My main concern arises as to when the Government propose to introduce legislation along the lines of the formidable criticism of the present law suggested by the Law Commission. It would be appropriate at this stage to offer, at least on behalf of the serried Opposition ranks and even the serried Government ranks, the congratulations of the House to the Law Commission on its work. It is a work of great skill and scholarship, which deserves commendation.
We are at one in our approach to the proposed EEC directive. I share the Minister's criticisms about the harmonisation of insurance law throughout the EEC. He stated the Government's view well, and I would not depart from it, but in one respect it would be important if we could implement the non-life services directive which has created such difficulties for successive Governments in our negotiations with our European colleagues. I suspect that in this regard national interest, especially in the case of the French and German Governments, has somewhat overwhelmed the spirit of community which we hear so much about from time to time. What has happened is that British insurance interests are being squeezed out unceremoniously. I doubt whether we are going to make great progress on this, despite the fairly optimistic views of the Minister. These nationalistic concepts will, I think, continue to override the general requirement for harmonisation.
Moving on to consumer protection, which governed most of the Minister's remarks, the purpose of the directive is not stated to be one of providing consumer protection. As I understand it, the choice that was depicted by the Law Commission for reforming the defects in our insurance law was that between domestic legislation and the EEC directive. I prefer the route of reform of our domestic legislation. A substantial case was made by the Law Commission for reasonably speedy reform.
The directive has been dealt with in pretty scathing terms by the Law Commission, more scathing than the words of the Minister. Perhaps he was being diplomatic and did not want to cause too much offence to our Community colleagues; I do not know. The Law Commission described the directive as unsatisfactory and inadequate. I summarise the principal grounds for the Law Commission's strong critique. It felt that, if anything, the duty of disclosure should be retained, and perhaps widened, by requiring disclosure of any facts which may influence the insurer's judgment.
The Law Commission is very strong about the proportionality principle, which it rejects in no uncertain terms—far stronger than the Minister's words. He expressed criticism of the proportionality principle by saying that he would need some convincing about its implementation. I should have liked him to have gone much further, even as far as the Law Commission, by suggesting that the whole principle ought to be dropped. Indeed, I had thought that that was the original view of the Department of Trade. I was concerned to hear that the Minister was seemingly qualifying that original judgment. I hope that he will comment on that in his speech in winding up the debate. Perhaps I have read too much into what he said. I hope that he will make it clear that the issue of proportionality is not one that the Government will accept.
The reason why there is some superficial attraction for the argument of proportionality is that it appears to mitigate the harshness of the duty of disclosure. We can deal with the duty of disclosure by adopting the fundamental principle suggested by the Law Commission, that the existing law in this respect is far too heavily weighted in favour of insurers to the detriment of the insured. We should start from that precept and work on to reform the law substantially. Anyone reading the Law Commission's report could not doubt the need for that substantial reform.
I have not dealt with all the arguments that have been brought to bear on the directive by the Law Commission. Its complete silence on warranties is clearly a matter of concern. The directive, I understand, does not include life insurance. Perhaps worst of all, it would have the effect—and this was the burden of one of the Minister's arguments—of freezing the reform of our law. That would make it difficult, apart from adopting the minimal standards to which the Minister referred, to inject a real note of reform into the law.
Will the Minister, who seems now to adopt the case for substantial reform along the lines of the Law Commission's report, give us a little clearer idea of when the Government's consultations are expected to be concluded, and when we might expect some definitive propositions for the reform of the law. In some respects, the Government have no hesitation in establishing periods within which consultation has to be concluded. The Minister has just issued a consultation document on the difficult matter of concert parties and related subjects in company law. He has told everybody that they must finish their deliberations and report to him within 14 days. But in this respect no time limit is suggested. The deficiencies in the law are so important and serious that we should be demanding substantial reform designed to provide much more protection for consumers. That should not wait for another year or two or three.
I have heard the Minister's arguments on these questions before. Recently we dealt in the House with the Insurance Companies Bill. I referred fairly obliquely on that occasion to the work of the Law Commission. The Minister seemed to advance the defence of the insurance companies that the voluntary codes of practice that have been issued provide an adequate protection for the consumer. I do not accept that. The Minister may say that the codes have only just been revised, that we now have the insurance industry ombudsman and that we should give all that a chance to work. However, insurance companies, in spite of the code, are still able to rely on their legal rights, and they remain the sole arbiters of what is reasonable.
Let me deal with non-disclosure—first, where there is no proposal form. There is a strong argument in that case for a new law to protect insured persons. An example is where one simply has to put a tick in a box, as with certain holiday insurances that are offered in holiday brochures.
The same happens when we apply for temporary cover for 28 days for motor insurance. We can obtain accident cover at airports merely by putting some money into a slot machine. In all these transactions there is no question of a proposal form. Those who are insured in such circumstances do not know what they have to disclose and in any event they do not know how to go about doing so. They do not address their minds to these matters substantially or at all. Therefore, a situation can arise in which an insurance company says that it will avoid a policy because of non-disclosure. In many instances that is a draconian penalty for an insured person merely because he does not disclose a material fact.
The Law Commission suggests that the law should be reformed where there is a proposal form and complete and accurate information is required. For example, someone might say in good faith that he is not suffering from any illness and later he is found to be suffering from an illness. In those circumstances, the insurers are able, if they so wish, to reject the claim. It may never have dawned upon the person seeking insurance to provide the information. I suggest that the commission's recommendation that questions be answered only to the best of a person's knowledge and belief is the right criterion and that everything else is grossly unfair.
What does a person have to disclose for the purpose of renewal? Every contract that comes up for renewal requires the disclosure principle to be repeated. The commission has perhaps sided with the insurance industry against its original views. However, most people do not understand their duty on renewal. They do not address their minds to these matters. The penalties for failure to disclose can be dire even if that failure is unrelated to the loss.
At present the law requires an insured person to reveal any fact that a prudent insurer would consider to be material. I consider that requirement to be imperfect. It is a requirement that may be difficult for the insured person to carry out. Of course I make the assumption that we are dealing with someone who is honest and not crooked. A person may have suffered a driving conviction and that may become relevant in the mind of the insurer in respect of an entirely different form of insurance policy. Failure to disclose the conviction would enable the insurer to repudiate liability. That is an issue to which we should turn our attention very soon.
Breach of warranty gives rise to some interesting discussion by the Law Commission and some interesting recommendations. At present an insurance company might be in the position of being able to reject a claim where the insured person breaks a promise to which he might hardly have addressed his mind. There may be a requirement, for example, to put special locks on someone's windows. If he neglects to do that and there is a fire in the house, the insurers might seek to repudiate liability. The test suggested by the Law Commission is that the breach should have related to and increased the risk of the loss that occurred. That is a fair test, which in my view the Government should implement as soon as possible.
The basis of contract clauses—and I shall not go into that in detail—is something else that has been discussed at length by the Law Commission. The consumer associations differ from the Law Commission in their conclusions. However, it is an argument that we should hear more about at a more suitable time.
I conclude on an argument to which the Minister did not refer and to which I have lightly alluded—the question of statements of practice. When I had the Minister's responsibility, I constantly heard that insurance companies felt that it was not necessary to undertake major reform because all the fears expressed by consumer associations, Ministers and sometimes officials in the Department of Trade were unrealistic, because they had their statements of practice. This Minister, to his credit, has encouraged the industry to beef up the situation, and we have revised statements of practice.
However, the Law Commission is very critical indeed of the statements of practice, and implicitly about the new statements, too. Let me summarise the criticisms. First, it is argued that the statements of practice constitute evidence that the law is unsatisfactory; otherwise, they would not be necessary. That is a cogent argument. Secondly, insurers are able to rely, notwithstanding what is said in the statement of practice, on their strict legal rights. Thirdly, the statements do not have the effect of changing the law. The insurers retain a discretion to reject claims and repudiate policies. Fourthly, the Law Commission argues that insurers should not be the sole arbiters of whether repudiation is unreasonable in a given situation" Fifthly, the statements cover only policyholders in a private capacity. Sixthly, the statements are not adopted by all insurers in any event. Seventhly, the insured, particularly where intermediaries may be involved, may not know the identity of the insurer.
I have gone into those matters at some length, because, by virtue of what the Government have put forward in their motion, they are saying that they welcome the approach of the Law Commission. This is the first time that we have had an opportunity to consider the representations of the Law Commission, so I make no apology for referring to them rather than to the misbegotten directive. There is only one thing to be said for the directive. It has perhaps helped to focus attention on an important matter of consumer protection.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will not delay in introducing proposals, perhaps in the form of a Green Paper but preferably a White Paper, in the next 12 months—which is a perfectly adequate period—setting out their views on the Law Commission's recommendations having conducted the initial consultations to which the Minister referred. Let us proceed to reform our own law,


unimpeded by the directive. I believe that, in the main, the Law Commission's recommendations are the lines that the Government should follow.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I seek the brief indulgence of the House in response to the Minister's invitation. I shall try to assist him on the question of proportionality from my practical experience of the insurance industry.
There is little doubt in anyone's mind that the law governing the disclosure of material facts in relation to an insurance contract is out of date. The fact that a statute is antiquated does not mean that it is necessarily wrong. However, in this case it is such a long time since anyone seriously examined the law governing disclosure that it is high time that, as a result of the Law Commission's activities or the draft directive, action should be taken to consider the basis on which facts are considered material and the failure to reveal material facts is considered a correct basis for avoiding a claim.
The starting point must be that the law is defective in that regard. There is a need for reform. However, we should recognise that, although insurance companies have had the right to reject thousands of claims because of a failure to disclose a material fact in an insurance proposal, they have taken advantage of it in only a few cases. Some people may think that that is an argument for moving slowly, if at all. I do not take that view. When the application of the law has to be resisted, it is time to consider the law and the possibility of a change.
Given that there is a need for change, the Law Commission got its recommendations broadly right. It is particularly correct to resist the idea of "proportionality", which was recommended in the revised draft directive. If carried into practice, the principle would mean that if there was a failure to disclose a material fact it would not be known whether all the claim or only part of the claim was to be repudiated until the event. Far from simplifying the situation—when insurance companies are being asked to simplify their contracts—it would complicate the issue.
I give my hon. Friend the Minister every backing in resisting any movement towards proportionality. It is an unworkable principle. I shall cite one example of how the acceptance of proportionality would increase the difficulties that are occasionally faced. In many policies there is the "average clause". That means that if the premium is paid on a sum insured that is less than the value on which it should be paid, an insurer is entitled to pay only a proportion of the total loss. At first sight that may appear to be a form of proportionality. In this area we are dealing with fact, not opinion. The value that should have been insured and the value that was insured can be ascertained. They are not matters of opinion. If that principle of proportionality were extended to the failure to disclose material facts we should have to assess when a fact is particularly material, not very material or not material. In advance of the event, that would prove an impossible task.
If there is the possibility of a claim being reduced through an average clause, because the sum insured is inadequate, and if one adds to that the possibility of the claim being reduced because of a failure to state a material fact, the combination of those facts will add considerably

to the confusion that a policyholder will experience. Therefore, I believe that the whole idea of proportionality should be stoutly resisted.
In encouraging my hon. Friend to resist the idea, I hope that, important as it is to consider the draft directive, he will not allow any consideration of it and of the Law Commission report to obscure the fact that far and away the most important matter on which we should like to see movement within the EEC is the adoption of the directive on the freedom of services. This country takes over the Presidency on 1 July. I hope very much that during the period in which we hold the Presidency one of our achievements will be at long last to attain some movement on the adoption of the directive on the freedom of services. It is a golden opportunity, which I hope that the Government will grasp with both hands.
By all means let us accept that some change in the law on disclosure of material facts is desirable—perhaps even urgent—but let us not complicate it by accepting the recommendation of the revised draft directive to introduce something which is foreign to the law of this land and which would be particularly difficult to work in practice—namely, the principle of proportionality.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister one brief question, which I hope that he will answer when he winds up the debate.
I must declare an interest, because I am a director of a very successful insurance company, the name of which I would give if I thought that many people would read the Official Report of our proceedings at this late hour.
My question is simple. My hon. Friend the Minister has set out the principle of proportionality. Do the Government intend in future discussions on this matter to approach it on the basis of proportionality as to what the policy holder would have paid if he had declared the risk correctly with the same insurance company? That question is crucial and fundamental and could have important consequences for temperance insurance companies and others that insure only particular categories of people.
It is clear that with a simple declaration of risk—for example, epilepsy, a previous conviction or having a wooden leg—it is easy to work out what the extra premium would have been if the person concerned had disclosed the facts.
However, some insurance companies make it an absolute condition of issuing a policy that the policyholder should have certain basic characteristics. For example, some companies will insure only people who are total abstainers. They are substantial companies, and they include the enormous Swedish-based Ansvar Insurance Company Limited, of which I am a director.
How could proportionality work in such circumstances? It is easy to work out what someone would have paid for, say, car insurance if he were not an abstainer and had gone to a normal insurance company. But it is not possible to work out what premium he would have had to pay if he had been a drinker and had decided to ask for a policy from a temperance insurance company, which is only one of a number of instances of companies that will insure only certain categories of people.
Does my hon. Friend intend in the discussions to approach the issue on the basis of what would have been the premium paid by the insured person if he had declared the risk correctly in the generality of the insurance market,


or will he try to sort the matter out in relation to what the policyholder would have paid if he had declared the risk correctly to the company with which he is insured? This is a point of substance.
It is a shame that in this and other matters we are looking for harmonisation in a Euro-context within the EEC. It is becoming increasingly clear that the growth of business in insurance and other matters will not be in Western Europe, which unfortunately appears to be heading for decline in a world context. We should be looking for harmonisation with other countries and other areas where we can look forward to continuing real growth.
It would be infinitely better if we looked for harmonisation in a world context, or perhaps with groups including the United States. It is unfortunate that we are seeking to harmonise simply within the EEC, which will be to the long-term disadvantage of insurance, banking, British industry and many other areas.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will answer my one question—about declaring the risk to one insurance company, as against declaring it generally to the insurance market.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I apologise for the fact that I missed the start of the debate, which began earlier than we had expected. It is proper in those circumstances to keep one's remarks brief.
I do not want to deal too much with the detail of the directive. I intervene because I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said about the broader aspects of the harmonisation of insurance provisions and the other enactments which we may presumably expect from the EEC on the general harmonisation of insurance services.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it is only a mild objection to what he said when I say that it is important to get the approval of the House for full harmonisation. This is, par excellence, an area in which the United Kingdom insurance industry will do very well once we achieve full liberalisation throughout the Community. Several other member States—I deliberately will not name them—have considerable restrictions on our industry entering their markets.
I think that those of my hon. Friends who know the industry better than I will agree that, for the premiums that consumers pay in this country for general insurance coverage, including endowment and life policies, the scope of those policies and the return on them are much more substantial, and therefore more economical, than they are in other member States. The United Kingdom has a leading role to play in expanding those services into the other member States. Consumers in other countries would welcome our industry having that opportunity.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Has there not been a carefully orchestrated and concerted opposition to the very point that the hon. Gentleman is making? Over the years, other interests have become only too well aware that our insurance services would do well in the rest of the EEC and have therefore done their best to frustrate the operation of those services there properly or at all.

Mr. Dykes: I agree, but surely the consequence is that we should fight hard at the various levels of Community

decision-making and legislation to ensure that our rights—and those of other countries, if their industries are prepared to provide competitive insurance services—are safeguarded and those services provided through harmonisation. This is crucially an area in which Community law is important in all member States. We should press for those things, rather than resent that reality and just concede the point.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman suggests that Governments have not been trying. Successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, have been trying, year after year, to persuade others to become more liberal in their attitude to these things, and we have significantly failed. There is not a chink of light at the end of the tunnel at the moment.

Mr. Dykes: I do not accept that. It is possible to work towards an agreed Community solution which provides an open, free, market. Be that as it may, it would be inappropriate to prolong the debate, other than to put forward those important thoughts and sentiments which I believe that the whole House would support.
When the other directives come up, I hope that there will be a better attendance in the House to try to ensure that the United Kingdom gets the appropriate solution for its industry, which we would all wish to see. It was in that spirit that I regarded the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East as being extremely negative, surprisingly so perhaps, because he knows a lot about that industry. I hope that there will be a change of mind on his part when the next occasion arises.

Mr. Roger Moate: I thought that this would be a debate among lawyers and, discretion being the better part of valour, that it would be best to keep out of it. However, I found the remarks of my hon. Friend the member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) so irresistible that I should like to make one or two observations.
The debate is a rather strange one. Looking briefly at the draft directives, one can see that it is of a limited nature. I understand that it was intended to apply only to large commercial risks, and even then only to risks of a limited kind, not even to marine and other risks. By relating it to the Law Commission report, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, in his usual thorough approach to these matters, has brought in a whole range of consumer protection matters which the Law Commission report covers.
If we were simply talking about the original draft directive, it would be agreed that in no way does it touch upon the question of harmonisation of insurance services throughout the Community. It is of an extraordinarily limited nature. Looking at it, one wonders why the Community is bothering to approach the matter in this piecemeal and half-hearted way.
Having got to this broader question of the Law Commission report—to which the debate quite properly relates—and the question of consumer protection, I make my observations as much in the nature of questions to my hon. Friend as the stating of opinions. When I read these proposals to change the law on disclosure and the law on the application of warranties to insurance contracts, I


wonder whether we are doing the right thing by contemplating legislating on this subject. It seems—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that matters of interpretation of the law on insurance contracts arise from precedent and case law and not from legislation. It seems a rather dangerous idea to legislate in respect of such aspects as the interpretation of insurance contracts, leaving aside the many other areas concerning insurance contracts which are just as relevant on this question of consumer protection. I am a little sceptical about the value of doing it in this way. We have been talking of generalities. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central strongly supported the Law Commission recommendations for relaxing the laws on disclosure. In practice I wonder how many cases there have been where insurance companies have been seen to act unreasonably. I suggest that we have heard of very few such cases. That does not mean that there have not been more. I suspect, generally speaking, that if there had been unreasonable cases of repudiation on the grounds on non-disclosure of facts which we might consider to be not material, we would have heard of them.

Mr. Clinton Davis: One of the points that can arise—and one would not hear about it—is where, in the course of negotiations over a claim, a suggestion is made by the insurance company that there has been some breach of the policy. This would perhaps avoid full payment being made and a settlement on rather lower terms being obtained. This is one of the matters we are not likely to hear about. The Law Commission has addressed itself to that argument.

Mr. Moate: I stick to the general proposition that in these circumstances insurance companies act reasonably and are very reluctant to invoke the argument about nondisclosure. I speak only from my own limited experience, but I have dealt with a large number of ordinary claims for ordinary consumers. In my experience, when an insurance company introduces the argument about non-disclosure of material facts, it is fought very hard by any client, policyholder or insurance broker, and I think that it is done only very rarely.
I suggest that the House should really be asking what volume of complaints would justify a change in the law. It is all very well to talk in generalities and to say that there might be an element of injustice in theory, but let us consider the practice. Before we go forward to legislation, we should ask how many hundreds or thousands of complaints there might have been both in respect of insurance policies based upon proposals and, as the hon. Member for Hackney, Central mentioned, all those cases based upon insurance where there is no proposal as the basis of contract. Let us find out the area of complaint and see whether it is really of such substance as to merit legislation which, like so much legislation, could well lead into areas of which we are not particularly cognisant at present.
Moreover, as we now have an insurance ombudsman and new codes of conduct particularly relevant to the area of consumer protection, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and not the commercial risks to which the directive refers, surely it is sensible to test them in practice

and see whether they will resolve that limited number of problems—and I believe that it is limited—which might have occurred in the past.
I therefore approach the whole subject with a degree of scepticism and some regret on this occasion that there are not more lawyers present, because essentially we are discussing very important legal matters. Before the House goes too far on this, we should debate in more depth the question of the application of warranties and the law of non-disclosure.
I turn briefly to the question of proportionality, which struck me as a rather unusual proposal to introduce into law. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist any temptation to introduce it into law. On the other hand, listening to the discussion, I do not think that the principle is too difficult to apply if one wants or needs to do so. Surely courts of law often apportion blame and costs as between different factors. For example, judges these days are reducing awards of damages because an individual may not have been wearing a seat belt. I should not have thought that it was all that difficult, in the event of a claim, for a judge or a court to decide how much of the loss was relevant to the fact of the non-disclosed information.

Mr. McCrindle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem does not arise if a claim actually reaches the court? It arises in the far more numerous claims which are dealt with at insurance company level. If the only way in which satisfaction could be obtained was for the matter to reach a court, would not that be a temptation to have rather more litigation than we at present experience?

Mr. Moate: I think that the danger lies in another respect. I was making the point that if a judge is capable of expressing an opinion—and it is only his opinion—about an allocation of blame or of costs, an insurance assessor or claims manager should be equally capable of expressing an opinion. I therefore do not think that it is too impossible a proposition or principle to apply.
I believe that the real danger is in the following respect. As I have said, I think that insurance companies have been reluctant to repudiate a contract or claim on the ground of non-disclosure. If we had the law of proportionality, however, they might be far more willing to say that a client did not declare a fact, albeit a fairly minor fact, which should have been declared and then apply the law of proportionality and reduce the claim accordingly, and clients and consumers might suffer extensively as a result.
I conclude by referring to the point that was the subject of discussion between my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I am sceptical about any prospect of an insurance Common Market. It is clear that the nationalistic approach of particularly the French and the Germans in this respect is such that they will never allow any major inroads to be made into their markets by the British life and non-life insurance companies. Their strength and success in direct selling and in selling by brokers of insurance is so great that there is no way in which those countries, with their totally different national traditions, will allow us to succeed.
There is no harm in trying, and I am not saying that these endeavours should not be pursued, but anybody who thinks that millions of pounds, or thousands of millions of


pounds—the sort of figures that would make a substantial difference—will flow from Europe into the insurance companies in Britain is living in a fool's paradise. I suspect that by now even those who were living in that fool's paradise, and dreamt of a great new British empire in insurance spreading on to the Continent of Europe, realise that it will not happen. The glitter has worn off the dreams of great expansion in the insurance markets of Europe. I share the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central in that respect.

Mr. Eyre: The prime purpose of these proceedings has been to give me an opportunity to listen to the views which have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I express my appreciation of those views, although I must be careful to stay in order in my brief concluding comments and not to trespass too far on the ground which has been explored by some of my hon. Friends. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) for his words of commendation of the work of the Law Commission. I agree with him entirely as to the great value of that work, and I am grateful to him for his tribute.
I noted carefully the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about defects in the present law. I acknowledge the correctness of his desriptions of the present practices of insurers, which do not strictly take full advantage of the legal position but which, in meeting liabilities, go well beyond those requirements.
An important point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), when he expressed his views and possible reservations concerning the need for any change in the law. He emphasised the fact that the practices of insurers generally have been very much in the public interest and have taken account of the broader interest, irrespective of the precise legal position concerning the claims with which they have had to deal.
With regard to proportionality, the European Commission has substantially amended the part of the directive that deals with that matter. The amendment is substantial. It has dealt with some of the Law Commission's criticism. On full probing, it may appear that most of the criticisms have been met. But the views of other member States on the European Commission's revisions will be forthcoming. So we need to examine the matter further in a critical and thorough manner, but not with closed minds. That is the proper approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) demonstrated his expertise in asking a question on a matter of practical importance. I cannot give him a precise answer tonight because it is not possible to foresee the circumstances in which negotiations relating exactly to his question would be taking place, but I have noted his question carefully and it will be borne in mind during the complex continuing negotiations.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has been kind in all his comments and I wish to ask him a simple question that does not relate to matters of detail. Have the Government insisted, and will they continue to do so, that proportionality should be in relation to the premium that

would have been applied, if disclosure had been made, by the company concerned, rather than by the generality of the insurance market?

Mr. Eyre: I understand the nature of my hon. Friend's question and appreciate that it raises a point of principle, but I cannot answer it accurately at this stage, in the context of thinking about matters of great complexity associated with proportionality. One will not know at what point in the negotiations the question raised by my hon. Friend would be considered. I will pay great attention to the question and will ensure that it is borne in mind and properly considered. I cannot go further at this stage. I ask my hon. Friend to accept my expression of interest and concern but to allow me to leave the matter there at present.
I also noted carefully the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and I made it clear in my opening speech that the Government are working hard to achieve progress on the service directive.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central asked about consultations on the Law Commission report, the importance of which we both acknowledge. We have received about two dozen sets of comments, many of them substantial, the most recent within the past fortnight. I am told that more may yet come to us. We are arranging meetings to discuss the written comments with, so far, the insurance industry—the BIA, Lloyd's and the Life Offices Association—and the consumer interests that have submitted views and reports.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am waiting to hear what the Minister has to say about the time scale and how he will seek to conclude the consultations. He has given a list of those whom he is consulting. I hope that he will not forget the Confederation of Insurance Trade Unions, which is a useful body. I hope that he will not omit consultation with the trade unions, because they have a direct interest in the matter.

Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. All the consultative documents were sent to the unions that he has in mind. They have said that their views will be forthcoming, but their views have not yet arrived. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we look forward to receiving those views and that they will be taken into account in the further consultations. Other meetings may follow. We are prepared to talk to any interested parties that wish to participate in this process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government are doing everything possible to examine this area and to prepare our views. My Department is pressing ahead on the Law Commission's report and the discussion in Brussels on the draft directive.
The course of the discussions during the rest of this year will, I believe, be sufficent to allow a view to be taken on whether there is scope and need for the amendment of United Kingdom law in advance of the measures likely to be needed to meet the directive's requirements as and when it is adopted.

Mr. R. B. Cant: Will the hon. Gentleman stray out of order and respond to the


general comments of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about the growing disillusionment of the insurance market about potential expansion into the EEC? Will he comment on the bid by Allianz, the German insurance firm, for Eagle Star? Does this represent a reverse takeover bid for the British insurance market?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope that the Minister will not be led astray.

Mr. Eyre: However tempting the request of the hon. Member for Stoke-on Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) may be, I would not dream of venturing out of order. I have tried to emphasise the fact that the services directive is seen to be very important by our insurance industry. That is why the Government are pressing ahead as rapidly as possible with the negotiations.
I should like to express my gratitude to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate. It is important that we should have discussions at appropriate stages in the negotiations on these complex provisions. I appreciate the effort that hon. Members have made to contribute to the debate. Their views will be taken into account in all the negotiations on these directives.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8144/79 and 4124/81 on insurance contract law and of the Department of Trade's explanatory memoranda of August 1979, 31 October 1980, and 12 February 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to ensure that the provisions of the proposed directive should take account of the scope for reform of United Kingdom law identified in the Law Commission's Report on Insurance Law: Non-disclosure and Breach of Warranty, Cmnd. 8064.

South Africa (Sporting Links)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. John Carlisle: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on bringing the previous proceedings to a close before midnight. As hon. Members know, this is Derby day. I started a tradition last year in this House that on Derby day we discuss sporting matters. It is a cause of sadness to some hon. Members that we do not discuss sport more often. Apart from my pleasure in seeing the Minister present for the debate, I am also delighted that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is greatly interested in this subject, should have been able to attend.
Twelve months have elapsed since I brought to the attention of the House the Sports Council report that followed the mission to South Africa, led by Mr. Dick Jeeps, which was funded by the Government. The mission reported on the progress made on integration of the races in South African sport. It was a factual, comprehensive and, as I think those who have read its findings will agree, accurate report. It was well received by sportsmen throughout this country, dealing, as it did, with a delicate subject.
The Minister himself acknowledged that the report was thorough. My hon. Friend recommended that the report should be circulated to other countries. I hope that his suggestion has been adopted. The report came to no conclusion, although Mr. Jeeps gave his opinion after publication and opinions have also been expressed by representatives of similar missions to South Africa over the past few years.
The opinions expressed show that multi-racial sport in South Africa has come a long way towards full integration. Many people recognise that, despite the strong opposition in South Africa shown in the recent general election to the great reforms that the Government party has made.
The report is a measure of progress in the last several years. The progress has been made by a Department which is seeking information. It is therefore disappointing that the Minister and the Prime Minister have said that although sport has made progress towards multi-racial activity in that country, they are still not satisfied that it has gone far enough. Many people ask how far South Africa must go to satisfy Her Majesty's Government and the rest of the world.
Only this week in another place, Lord Kinnoull raised the question of segregation in sport in South Africa. The reply from Lord Avon was about rumours of recent initiatives. That was unfortunate because it shows that the Government are not taking account of what has happened in South Africa. I appeal to the Minister, who was in South Africa some years ago, to go back and see the progress for himself.
Since the report was presented and since the debate 12 months ago, events have taken a nasty and vicious turn. I regret that our Government, perhaps because of their intransigent attitude towards the Gleneagles agreement, have not recognised the progress as much as many would like. They must take some responsibility. Indeed, the South African Non Racial Olympic Committee, the London-based political weapon of the South African


Council on Sport, is using the new political weapon of a black list of sportsmen throughout the world. It contains many British sportsmen.
SACOS is a totally unrepresentative body in opposition to the National Government in South Africa. It is racially discriminatory in that it is dominated by Indian and coloureds. Very few, if any, whites, and few blacks are on its board. Yet it has taken upon itself to produce a black list through its organisation in London. I am sad that it has captured the imagination of the media and has held many headlines throughout the world. It is a vindictive list relating to the spiteful policy which SANROC is pursuing.
The activities of SACOS in South Africa should be catalogued here. The report tells stories of tyres being slashed and intimidation against people who are not members of SACOS. When I was in South Africa recently, I was told the story of the world boxing championship in the Orlando stadium in Soweto. SACOS distributed leaflets round the township before the event saying that it had been cancelled in an attempt to reduce the 40,000-strong crowd. The crowd turned up and the event went ahead. SACOS tried the same tactics when the O-Jays—an American singing group—gave a concert in the same stadium.
I was also told of the story of an 11-year-old school girl who took part in a sporting event, not organised by SACOS and who was chastised in front of her 1,400 school mates. SACOS is dominated by teachers. It is not unknown for examination results to be affected by teachers if that is in the interests of SACOS.

Mr. Denis Howell: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the extraordinary incident of the cricket match between two schools, where, because two players on one side were coloured, the headmaster and school authorities refused to allow the match to continue? There was the even more appalling case of blind people taking part in a Braille contest who refused to continue when they learnt—although they could not see—that some of the opponents, who were also blind, were coloured. Does not that suggest that progress is not quite what the hon. Gentleman suggests? Will he condemn those actions along with any other condemnation that he cares to put forward?

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman should be grateful for the fact that I gave him so much time. There was a similar instance in the Craven week when schools refused to play against black teams. They were banned by the organiser and the authorities took a dim view of the incident that the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House.
When I was in South Africa the SACOS organisation seemed to be in some disarray and disillusionment. The president did resign but then changed his mind because of the pressure put on him. Only yesterday we heard from South Africa that Norman Middleton, the president of the South Africa Soccer Federation, which is a SACOS organisation, said that he would tell all. He said:
For the sake of unity and our fight to bring true non-racialism to our sport, I have always accepted these backhanders. Now it has all changed.
That shows the sort of organisation that we are discussing.
Only recently, in a new magazine called "Pace", the admirable journalist Ian Wooldridge, who is well known in Britain, spoke of Sam Ramsamy, the SANROC leader in London, and said about the funding of that organisation:

Ramsamy's friends as the years progressed included several with strong Russian accents.
It is only right that the House should realise that that organisation, which purports to speak for many millions of South Africans—although I believe that it is unrepresentative—has a doubtful means of origin for its funds.
The first example of the black list in Britain was brought to our attention by Lord Chalfont in an admirable article in The Times about John Feaver, a well-known English tennis player. He went to Nigeria to play in a tournament. He was detained in a cell overnight and then sent home with two of his colleagues, his crime having been that he played sport in South Africa, where tennis is played on a multi-racial basis. Despite my questions in the House, I was disappointed that the Government made no protest to the Nigerian Government about that incident. Not many days later the President of Nigeria was feted in this country by Her Majesty the Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I could only wish that many organisations would take the view of the International Tennis Federation, which has now banned Nigeria from the Grand Prix circuit.
The first black list that appeared was well known and has been well publicised. The most prominent name on the list was that of Dick Jeeps, the chairman of the Sports Council, who said that he would lose no sleep through being on the list. But it shows the importance of that list. To cap it all, to obtain the official seal of recognition SANROC received the support of the committee of the United Nations against apartheid—a committee which hon. Members know full well is dominated by those with Eastern European sympathies. I congratulate the Minister and the Lord Privy Seal on their utter condemnation of the affair at that time. We await the full United Nations decision on the matter, but I hope that the Government will take the same line as the Minister.
The list is blatantly political, as is obvious for all to see. There was the recent example of Mr. Bill Hicks who spent a holiday in South Africa, returned to Britain, reported his activities to The Times, and was immediately blacklisted. There is Geoff Cook, the Northamptonshire cricketer, who spent the winter and previous winters coaching the blacks out there. Everyone who has been there realises the desperate need there is for coaching, when some 500 turn up for each coaching session. For his efforts he was put on a black list.
There is Charles Palmer, the well-known cricket administrator, who went with the ICC in 1979 on a fact-finding mission, the results of which were kept secret. He has been put on the black list because he went to see for himself. As hon. Members will know, there are several names, including Lester Piggott, Geoff Boycott and Mark Cox, people who have brought much pleasure to South Africa and given an. enormous amount of instruction to less-privileged members of South African society and in South African sport. To cap it all, not many weeks ago we had the incident of Robin Jackman in Guyana, when the English cricket team was on the verge of coming home. Again I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her comment at that time. This had absolutely nothing to do with Gleneagles.

Mr. Sam Ramsamy: has promised that several more names will be added to the list. It could be considered as a fairly amateur production. As reported by Ian Ball in the Daily Telegraph, it had several tell-tale marks and


duplicator mistakes when it came out. It had obviously been compiled at the last minute from newspaper reports here and in South Africa. We are told that it is to be updated. Only this week there was an attempt to blackmail three Cardiff rugby players, three British Lions, who were going on a rugby tour to Rhodesia. They were told that they would not be allowed to enter that country unless they signed a declaration that they would not return to South Africa. Thank heaven, reason prevailed and the tour went ahead.
The aims and objectives of this political organisation are obvious. They are being used as a weapon againt South Africa and against individuals and take no account of the feelings of individuals. They are nothing more than a personal vendetta. Who knows but that, if this movement were to grow, it could affect the Olympic Games, rugby in New Zealand, the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane, and test matches with the West Indies, India and Pakistan. If the list included discrimination against South Africans in this country even Wimbledon and the Open Golf might be threatened. If the effort to exclude all South Africans continues it could lead to a sporting desert throughout the world.
I am told that SANROC intends to extend its activities into entertainment. An excellent article in The Guardian by Donald Swami highlighted the terrible problem now becoming evident where entertainers are being denied the opportunity to go to South Africa to entertain in front of all colours. In that article he showed how far South Africa has gone down the road.
One wonders where this is going to stop. Will a list be brought out to discourage business people from going to South Africa? There are some 350 British companies working in South Africa worth some 250,000 jobs in this country and investment of up to £7,000 million a year. One may think that the list is reaching almost farcical proportions. One can understand the temptation for some people to let the list grow. Many who might be are not on it. Perhaps we should feed names to SANROC so that the list would become completely manageable and there could be no sporting competition anywhere without those on it. I wonder what the cricketers of the West Indies, India and Pakistan would say if they had to stay away from the rich financial pastures of Lords, Adelaide and Christchurch.
This is a serious matter, because it is a gross infringement of the British citizen's personal liberty. There was much in South Africa which I did not like and which many hon. Members do not like. There was also much to encourage me. They have made massive strides towards integration and there is no doubt that sport has led the way. Only this week the Government have announced, following a special sports report, that they will accept the recommendations of the report that the Liquor, the Group Areas, and the urban area for blacks Acts, are to be abolished for sport. Spectators are integrated, players change together and there is multi-racial competition throughout South Africa. The authorities there are very hard on recreants who do not follow that policy. They are being forced into change. The biggest barrier is probably the local authorities and some Government Departments. In this way we should give credit to the sportsmen of South Africa for the lead that they are taking in trying to change the politicians' minds, an endeavour in which they have enjoyed a certain amount of success over the years.
South Africa was committed to a 20-year sentence. That was a long time ago. It has had no remission for good conduct, and I suggest that it is about time that that was considered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deplore the list. I hope that he will give an assurance that in the United Nations the Government will speak out against, and not just abstain on this issue. I hope that he will continue to encourage the sports administrators in South Africa to maintain the progress that they have made and encourage sports administrators in this country to go out to see for themselves.
We are much encouraged by what has happened in the United States and by the initiative of President Reagan in seeing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The South Africans are much encouraged by the new Administration in Whitehall. I hope that I shall receive that encouragement from my hon. Friend tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) for raising this subject and to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for being present.
This is a particularly important topic, and I have no doubt that many of our sportsmen and women share my hon. Friend's concern. This must apply particularly to those who regularly participate in international competition.
I therefore welcome the opportunity to clarify the Government's attitude to the black list. I hope that I shall clear up one or two misconceptions.
Let me begin by explaining once again the Government's attitude generally towards sporting relations with South Africa. It is against this background that we can best consider the United Nations black list or any other.
As the House will know, the Government's policy rests wholly on the 1977 Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport—the Gleneagles agreement. This requires Commonwealth Governments to take every practical step in accordance with their laws to discourage sportsmen and women of their countries from playing against South Africa.
At the same time, we are firmly committed to maintaining the established autonomy and independence of sport and sporting organisations. Beyond that we will uphold the traditional freedom of our citizens to travel and work when and where they wish.
I cannot believe that any hon. Member would deny the evils of apartheid, but I recognise that many—particularly on the Conservative side of the House—are becoming uneasy. They fear that Governments of the Commonwealth have chosen to place sport in the forefront of a battle against apartheid in South Africa. They see the United Nations following suit.
I share that concern and sense of unease. But we also have to recognise the immense and lasting value of the Commonwealth as an institution. It is perhaps the one organisation that brings together people from all parts of the globe in a real spirit of co-operation. It is this that we must set against the value of absolute freedom to play sport without hindrance. We must, therefore, face political realities. So, too, must our sportsmen and women.
In an ideal world politics and sport would not be mixed. But, regrettably, ours is not an ideal world. One can argue that our sportsmen are individuals and citizens first. They


must, therefore, have regard to the wider consequences of their decisions and actions. This is especially true when they may impinge on their fellow sportsmen.
I am not suggesting that these considerations should be paramount, simply that they should be recognised and taken into account. Since we came into office in 1979 our commitment to the principles of the Gleneagles agreement has been reaffirmed many times. No one can be in any doubt about where we stand.
I do not now propose to catalogue the actions I have taken in consequence, but we have sought to fulfil our obligations as best we can in a free society—by advice and persuasion. Often this has been rejected by the independent governing bodies concerned. When it has been we can do no more. The Government have no powers which allow us to take further steps to prevent contacts taking place. Nor do we wish to take any.
In a free and democratic society such as ours it is right that we can seek only to advise and persuade. It is entirely up to the governing bodies and individuals concerned whether they accept this advice. Of course, the Commonwealth statement is open to different interpretations. However, we firmly believe that it concerns action by Governments with their own nationals. Others may interpret it differently, but we do not believe that the Commonwealth statement requires action by us, or any Commonwealth Government, against the nationals of another country.
It may well be that others consider we do not do enough. The emergence of the United Nations black list is its way of advancing the battle lines. But let me be clear. The Government cannot support any proposal which would oblige us to place limitations on the movement of our sportsmen and women, or to interfere with individual liberties.
We have to accept that every country has the right to refuse entry to non-nationals whose presence is considered undesirable. That right cannot be denied. However, we will not accept the use of such powers simply to penalise sportsmen.
We cannot, therefore, approve of this initiative by the United Nations Centre Against Apartheid and we will not support it. Indeed, we condemn all such "sporting black lists", whatever the source. My hon. Friend is therefore right to be concerned about the implications for our sportsmen and the future of international sport.
The House may find it useful if I outline briefly the history of, and background to, this unfortunate black list. Certainly media coverage of its origins and publication has been characterised by confusion over the past few months. Much of this is due to the two earlier unofficial lists by SANROC.
The United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid has existed in various forms since 1962. The United Kingdom has never been a member, but this is in no way unusual. The committee's membership has consisted almost exclusively of Eastern European and developing nations. Its decisions and recommendations—unlike resolutions of the Security Council—are not binding. The centre against apartheid, which published the black list, operates under one of several sub-committees.
Most of the information on which the list is based has been culled from newspaper reports—or, it seems, from

the efforts of SANROC. Britons feature prominently throughout. This might reflect the fact that SANROC is based here in London.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the list includes the chairman of the Sports Council and one of its members. I am sorry if my hon. Friend was concerned about my answer to his earlier question about the Sports Council chairman. That was possibly due to a misunderstanding. I have full confidence in Dick Jeeps. I am certain that the fact that his name appears on the list will in no way affect his ability to carry out his duties.
As time rolls forward we can expect new additions to the black list. The secretary's report states that one of the committee's objects in publishing the list is to help secure the isolation of South African sport as a means towards the elimination of apartheid in South Africa.
The report recognises that the co-operation of Governments and sports bodies will be necessary. The Government's view is clear. We abhor apartheid. We are committed to the Commonwealth statement. We will not co-operate with the special committee or the centre against apartheid in the operation of the black list.
It is unfortunate that some Commonwealth countries have already taken action on the black list. The United Nations report notes that Guyana has operated such a policy since 1976. It was this policy rather than this black list which prompted the Jackman affair.
My hon. Friend has given us other examples of what being on the black list means to British sportsmen. However, the United Nations committee goes further. It seems to be calling on Governments and sports bodies to bar their own nationals from domestic competition if they feature on the United Nations list. In the case of professional sportsmen, this would mean that individuals could effectively be denied any opportunity to pursue their chosen career. I need not dwell upon the Government's response to that suggestion other than to condemn it. I hope that British and international sports organisations will similarly condemn this proposal.
At its simplest, therefore, the effect of this black list may well be to present individual sportsmen and women with a stark choice. They will have to decide between sacrificing their links with South Africa and sacrificing the possibility of competing in those countries that co-operate with the United Nations Centre Against Apartheid in the operation of the black list. In a sense, this would represent no more than an attempt to make individuals face up to the wider responsibilities that I mentioned earlier, but it would be nearer to blackmail than advice. I find the prospect profoundly disturbing and potentially very divisive.
If a significant number of Governments should decide to deny entry to sportsmen named on the United Nations list, the effect could be more damaging. It is not difficult to foresee the result being complete polarisation of internationl sport. There could be groups of countries that are prepared or able to play only among themselves, which would be a total disaster for the world of sport.
All involved—and those of us who are not directly involved but care—must ask whether the end justifies the means. I believe that I have made my views and those of the Government quite plain.
However, others, too, have a role. I am thinking particularly of the international sporting federations themselves and the other sporting organisations that sanction or approve tournaments or fixtures. I hope that they will strongly resist pressures from whatever source to


make use of this or similar black lists in deciding the entries for their competitions. I sincerely hope that British sportsmen and governing bodies, and their counterparts overseas, will try to persuade the relevant organisations to resist these political pressures originating from the United Nations committee. If not, the prospects for international sport begin to look bleak. The Government will do what they can, but it is important to maintain the continued independence of sport and sporting organisations. Therefore, there is a limit to what we can do.
My hon. Friend has drawn our attention to three visits to South Africa, the Sports Council's fact-finding report, his own recent visit there, and the changed views of Bill Hicks, a respected member of the Sports Council. All report on the encouraging progress made in South Africa towards greater integration of sport.
The Government note the progress with satisfaction. We monitor the situation continuously, but it varies considerably between the different sports. Some have made greater progress towards integration than others.
Every step forward is helpful. We, therefore, welcome reports of the recent announcement by the South African Government that they intend to relax the Liquor Act, the Group Areas Act and related legislation as far as sport is concerned, but I understand that the legislative changes necessary have not yet been approved. None the less, the intention is welcome.
However, we are bound by the Gleneagles agreement. When the Government are persuaded that progress towards integration in sport in South Africa warrants it, we shall certainly seek a review of the Gleneagles agreement, but we are not yet persuaded that this time has arrived——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.